ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked-

NATO Responsibilities

Andrew Turner: What recent discussions he has had on NATO responsibilities outside the north Atlantic area.

Liam Fox: NATO's responsibility is to provide for the collective security of its allies against an increasingly diverse range of security challenges, both within the north Atlantic area and beyond. This is being reflected in work on the alliance's new strategic concept, on which I look forward to further discussions with the Secretary-General and fellow NATO Defence Ministers at our next meeting in October.

Andrew Turner: There is growing concern off the coast of Somalia, where cargo ships and holiday craft are regularly challenged by pirates seeking ransom from western Governments. With 90% of EU imports arriving by sea, is NATO doing enough to ensure safe passage through the Arabian sea and the Indian ocean?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend is quite right. For a nation such as the United Kingdom, where 92% of all our trade is by sea, the security of the high seas is vital. We contribute in a number of ways: through the NATO mission and through the EU's Operation Atalanta, which we command and to which we make a military contribution. It is also worth pointing out that there are contributions from other countries, which are increasingly recognising that the security of the high seas goes a lot wider than any of the alliances I have mentioned-particularly given the importance of trade-and is in fact a global security responsibility.

Denis MacShane: Britain's contribution to NATO, after the United States and along with France, is by far the most important, because we spend a good chunk of our GDP on defence. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he is doing everything to ensure that we spend more than 2% of GDP on defence in the coming review, and that if we fall below 2%-to the level of the runtish, anaemic armies of some of our European allies-he will not stay in the Cabinet, but resign and protest against such an attack on our status as a world armed power?

Liam Fox: We are subjected to quite a lot of humbug in the Chamber, but that takes the biscuit. This Government are committed to the security of the United Kingdom, but we will have to deal with defence expenditure in the light of the huge economic disaster that we inherited from the outgoing Labour Government, and of the fact that we have a massively overspent and overcommitted defence programme, for which the previous Government never bothered to put any money into the budget.

NATO Reform

Richard Ottaway: What recent discussions he has had on the reform of NATO.

Gerald Howarth: As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made clear at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in June, reform of NATO is a key priority for the UK. Defence Ministers will have further discussions on reform at their next meeting in October. We also have frequent bilateral discussions with fellow NATO Ministers and the Secretary-General on the importance of both ensuring that the alliance has the right capabilities and structures to carry out its missions, and on making better use of resources by making it a leaner, more efficient and more effective organisation.

Richard Ottaway: In the coming months three major developments will have a profound impact on Britain's foreign and defence policy in the medium term: the comprehensive spending review, the strategic defence review and the NATO summit. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it goes without saying that NATO should be effective and efficient, it must also be flexible? Will he focus on flexibility in his pursuit of the reforms that NATO needs?

Gerald Howarth: May I take this opportunity from the Dispatch Box to congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? As a result, the Committee is in very safe hands indeed, and the House should be grateful for that. He is absolutely right: we do need to be flexible, and we do need to make NATO much leaner and more able to react to circumstances as they arise. However, he is also right to point out the pressures under which we are all labouring at the moment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have inherited no money in the kitty with which to defend the country.

David Crausby: NATO's new draft strategic concept-to be discussed at the NATO summit-suggests that participation in missile defence is open to all allies. What conclusions has the Minister drawn regarding Britain's involvement in new missile defence systems?

Gerald Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the strategic concept will be discussed at the Lisbon summit, but as yet the Secretary-General's paper on it has not been seen. However, I understand that missile defence is a matter of interest, and I know that, as a former member of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in such matters. Indeed, when he and I were on the Committee, we both looked at missile defence. This is an important area that NATO needs to address, and I hope it will be addressed squarely in the context of the strategic concept.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend knows of my long-standing interest in the kingdom of Morocco. What future does he think NATO's European Mediterranean dialogue has? In particular, what future does NATO's relationship with Morocco have, in the light of Morocco's participation in the Mediterranean dialogue since 1995, its assistance in the Balkans and its activities in Operation Active Endeavour? Does he agree that Morocco, as one of our oldest allies, has a strong part to play in future NATO operations?

Gerald Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in Morocco; indeed, he is the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Morocco. He has rightly pointed out that that country is part of Operation Active Endeavour, although I understand that certain technical difficulties currently preclude it from contributing to naval shipping. I must also point out to him that Morocco is not involved in Afghanistan. However, we welcome support from wherever we can obtain it, and I hope he will be able to use his good offices to that effect.

Army Recovery Capability

Nick Smith: What plans he has for the future of the Army recovery capability; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Robathan: The coalition Government are fully committed to supporting injured servicemen and women who have sacrificed so much for our country's security. We are therefore proceeding with the delivery of the Army recovery capability, which was announced by the previous Administration in February this year, in partnership with Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. This extremely laudable initiative will make a real difference to the support that the sick and wounded receive during and after the excellent clinical care from which they already benefit. Last Wednesday, I met the future Chief of the General Staff to discuss progress with the delivery of this capability, and to consider what more can be done to support these individuals as they return to duty or make the transition to civilian life.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will the Government confirm that the three new personnel recovery centres are on track to open according to the time scale set up by Labour?

Andrew Robathan: May I first, unusually, pay tribute to the previous Administration? The Army recovery capability represents a really positive, sensible move forward. They committed resources to it, and we shall continue to do so. Yes, at the moment, we are definitely on track for the opening times. I visited the current centre at the Erskine homes in Edinburgh three weeks ago and saw the work that has been going on there. That is improving the whole time. I should say that this is a new development, and things will evolve as we move forward.

James Gray: One of the centres will be in Bulford and Tidworth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), and it will open in 2012. Does the Minister agree that, as well as looking after the injured servicemen, there are two elements that we must not lose sight of? The first is to look after their families, who often suffer greatly. The second is to find really practical ways of giving these people jobs and putting them in touch with employers, so that they can be employed for many years to come.

Andrew Robathan: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Families play a hugely important role in that regard. Indeed, I regularly meet members of the families federations of the Army and the other forces, and I can assure him that they let me know their views in no uncertain terms. Regarding his second point, the Army recovery capability is working on ensuring that, whatever the future of the personnel it is treating, they have a future either in the armed forces or in civilian life.

Kevan Jones: I am sure that the Minister has seen in  The Sun newspaper this morning the proposal to throw out of the armed forces those who have been severely wounded on active service. I note that the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State are citing the introduction of manning control points as a justification for that. When I was the Minister responsible for these matters, I resisted the introduction of manning control points, and it was only after intense pressure from the head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, and the Army Board that they were introduced. What was clear, however, was that they would not be used as a way of getting rid of brave servicemen and women injured in the defence of this country-a position that was underlined when General Richards and I launched the Army recovery capability in February. At the time, General Richards said that he expected
	"that no soldier who thinks it is in his interests to stay will be forced out."
	May I ask the Minister whether that has now changed? Is it now the intention of the Ministry of Defence, under pressure from the Treasury, to use manning control points to force out those injured in the line of duty? If it is, it will be a moral betrayal and run contrary to all the rhetoric-

Mr Speaker: Order. We have got the thrust of the question, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). A brief reply from the Minister, please.

Andrew Robathan: I hate to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be a moral outrage if we were to throw people out through manning control points after they had been injured on active service. As he will know, if people have been treated through the Army recovery capability, they will be going down an entirely different route and no manning control point will be used at the time. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against believing everything he reads in  The Sun or any other newspaper.

Gulf Region Security

Mike Freer: What his most recent assessment is of the security situation in the Gulf region; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Ellison: What his latest assessment is of the security situation in the Gulf region.

Nick Harvey: The security situation in the Gulf remains delicately balanced, with Iran's nuclear ambitions, Arab-Israel relations and the risk of Yemen becoming a failed state being the most destabilising factors. We are working closely with our allies in the region as well as key partners such as the US to find a diplomatic solution to all these issues, but it is clear that they will not be resolved quickly. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's Gulf initiative, which recognises increased engagement in the region as a key foreign policy priority. It makes it clear that there are significant economic as well as national security interests in the Gulf, and that the presence of UK forces there is vital in order to reassure our allies and act as a stabilising influence.

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend will share my concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. What action is being taken to ensure that the UN sanctions are enforced effectively to deter Iran from future developments?

Nick Harvey: I certainly do share my hon. Friend's concern, as I am sure do all Members. The Government of Iran are facing increasing economic and political pressure as a direct result of their failure to address international concerns about their nuclear programme. Alongside sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council resolutions, Iran has also faced autonomous sanctions from the EU, the US, Canada, Australia and Norway. Others will follow soon, and many major companies have decided to stop business with Iran. Iran has much to gain from taking the necessary steps to restore international confidence in its nuclear intentions and will face tougher and tougher sanctions if it fails to do so.

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he comment further on the Iran Government's increasingly provocative approach in their military and nuclear programme and their apparent disregard for international opinion, which has been evidenced in recent times?

Nick Harvey: There is no doubt that Iran is behaving provocatively. Our policy towards Iran remains that we wish to address a broad range of concerns, of which nuclear proliferation is undoubtedly the foremost. Iran's support for terrorism, its negative role in the wider middle east region and its record on human rights all remain matters of serious concern. We remain committed to diplomacy, dialogue and engagement, but that does not prevent us or the international community from maintaining pressure about legitimate concerns. A positive future for Iran is possible, based on its leadership recognising its obligations to its own people, neighbours and the international community. That is the future we want to see Iran turning to, in order to gain the respect it seems so greatly to crave.

Mike Gapes: Has the Minister made any assessment of when, at the current rate of uranium enrichment, there is likely to be a breakout capability? In those circumstances, how optimistic is he that sanctions will be effective in stopping the seemingly relentless drive by the Iranian regime towards having a nuclear weapon?

Nick Harvey: A whole range of time scales is being looked at, although I cannot say that anything is precisely clear in that respect. The situation is monitored very closely by the international community, ourselves included. If there is any sign of development of the sort the hon. Gentleman describes, we will undoubtedly ramp up our response accordingly.

Combat Stress (Retired Service Personnel)

Oliver Colvile: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on provision of facilities for retired service personnel diagnosed with combat stress.

Andrew Robathan: The Ministry of Defence works closely with the Department of Health on issues relating to support for former service personnel with mental health needs, in particular through the Partnership Board, which brings together the MOD and the four UK Departments of Health.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced a report on combat stress, and I wonder whether the Minister knows when it might be published. Both the Combat Stress charity and the Plymouth and district branch of Mind are interested, and they would like to read it sooner rather than later.

Andrew Robathan: May I first pay tribute to Combat Stress-an excellent organisation-and its current chief executive Dave Hill, whom I understand is retiring shortly to Northumberland, where he lives? It does excellent work among ex-service personnel. As to the date of publication, there is an old parliamentary procedure: it will be published shortly.

Gisela Stuart: It is an admirable aspiration for veterans to get priority in receiving NHS treatment. Will the Minister update us on how former veterans will be identified, and what progress he is making with the Department of Health on achieving that?

Andrew Robathan: People who have served in the armed forces need to declare that they have done so, but under the previous Government much work was done to ensure that as people leave the armed forces, they are identified by GPs as former service personnel, and that is how we are progressing. The report that will be produced shortly by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) will deal with this issue. I pay tribute to him for his work, and thank him on behalf of the House and the Government.

Alun Cairns: Post-traumatic stress disorder is a serious condition, and the lack of diagnosis has led to significant compensation claims. Considering that in the UK health is generally devolved to the various Parliaments and Assemblies, what action is the Minister taking to ensure a consistent response and to address the issue of compensation payments?

Andrew Robathan: PTSD is indeed a serious condition and should not in any way be treated lightly. It is certain that some people returning from combat do suffer from PTSD. The King's Centre for Military Health Research, led by Professor Simon Wessely, has done a lot of work looking at the condition and what further we can do. I do not have an immediate answer to the question of how we can have settled compensation, except that under the armed forces compensation scheme each person with some form of health problem has a particular tariff, which might apply to PTSD too.

Sharing Military Equipment

Mary Creagh: What recent discussions he has had with Ministerial colleagues on the sharing of military equipment with other countries.

Liam Fox: On operations, we will always try to share equipment with our partners to best effect, for example with the pooling of helicopters in Afghanistan. More broadly-I imagine this might be what the hon. Lady has in mind-the strategic defence and security review is considering options for closer bilateral co-operation with key nations, but NATO will remain the cornerstone of our defence.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. There has been a great deal of speculation over the summer, and while there is no problem with joint procurement, the operational problems are potentially huge if we end up purchasing our Tornados on some sort of time-share or hire-purchase arrangement with another nation. Will he reassure the House that any decisions he makes will be driven by the operational requirements of the armed forces? Will he also bear it in mind that if one buys cheap, one often pays twice?

Liam Fox: There are two issues. First, why would we want to get involved in further joint co-operation? Clearly, economy of scale needs to be taken into account in the difficult budgetary environment. Secondly, who would the key partners be? In looking at key partners, we certainly consider operational effectiveness and those countries that are likely to deploy and to spend on the research necessary to get the capability we would want. Clearly, for such partnerships, the two frontrunners are the United States and France.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there may be circumstances in which it is more effective to share responsibilities rather than equipment? Will he tell the House whether, as a result of his meeting in Paris last week, there was any discussion of the possibility of sharing responsibility for nuclear deterrence?

Liam Fox: We have repeatedly made it clear that we believe that having an independent nuclear deterrent is a vital part of the United Kingdom's sovereign capability, and we intend to keep it that way. Where we can co-operate on technical matters with the French, without interfering with our sovereign capability in any way, it would make sense to do so.

David Cairns: On press reports about the sharing of aircraft carriers, may I say that, despite having 500 constituents who work in the upper Clyde shipyards, I have always seen the matter as a strategic, not primarily industrial, question? In that context, does the Secretary of State agree that having one aircraft carrier would be a strategic nonsense, and that not having any of our own would be a major breach of the nation's sea-based defence posture, which goes back not just decades but centuries?

Liam Fox: I am the first to defend, as I have regularly, the concept of sea-borne air-power projection, especially for a maritime nation such as the United Kingdom. However, the hon. Gentleman's question is an eloquent and crafty try at tempting me into commenting on the current SDSR discussions, which I will be happy to share with the House at the appropriate time.

Defence Industrial Strategy (SMEs)

Andrew Bridgen: What assessment he has made of the potential benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises of the new Defence Industrial Strategy.

Peter Luff: The Government are committed to enhancing the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, both as a vital part of the United Kingdom's economy and as suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. In December we will publish a Green Paper on our defence industrial and technology policy, which will include proposals for better support for small and medium-sized enterprises. It will be followed by a White Paper. In parallel, we propose to work with industry to review the representation of small and medium-sized enterprises on the National Defence Industries Council to ensure that their voice is properly heard.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the Minister for his answer, but will he agree to meet me at his earliest convenience to discuss the legitimate concerns of companies in my constituency about tendering for MOD contracts?

Peter Luff: We are well aware that SMEs can suffer particular challenges as a result of excessive delays, frequent changes and complexity in the procurement process. We intend to take full account of those concerns during our development of the Green and White Papers. However, I should welcome an opportunity to discuss the issues with my hon. Friend in my office at an early date, and I look forward to seeing him with his constituents.

Bob Ainsworth: When the Government purchase from small and medium-sized companies, those companies' ability to deliver must be taken into account in the procurement process. Given that the Minister has not yet signed the contract for the light protected patrol vehicle, can he assure us that in that instance, ability to deliver-and in a timely way-will be fully evaluated? The vehicle really is needed in Afghanistan without delay, and that must surely be the Minister's priority.

Peter Luff: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's close personal and constituency interest in this procurement. I entirely agree with what he has said, and I can give him an absolute assurance that the ability to build the vehicle on time will be a key part of our decision. As he has pointed out, it is very important to the protection of our troops in Afghanistan.

Kabul International Conference

Sam Gyimah: What assessment he has made of the implications of the outcomes of the recent Kabul international conference of British troops in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Fox: The importance of a co-ordinated civilian, political and military strategy was agreed by the Afghan Government and the international community at the Kabul conference. It includes a phased approach to the security-led transition of Afghan provinces from the control of the international security assistance force to that of the Afghan National Security Force, with the aim of ensuring that the Afghan forces are leading military operations across Afghanistan by the end of 2014. United Kingdom personnel are working closely with the ANSF to help it to build its capacity and capability and enable it to achieve that aim.

Sam Gyimah: It is clear that one of the success stories of the Afghanistan situation is the growth and increasing competence of the Afghan security forces. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will hand over areas of control to Afghan forces well before 2015, and that it will be a process rather than a single event?

Liam Fox: This is an important issue for the international community as well as the United Kingdom. It is important that, as we achieve transition in Afghanistan, we maintain the cohesion of the alliance and the international coalition as a whole. The process must therefore involve phasing out, not walking out. It is to the advantage of the entire coalition that the countries whose transition takes place in some of the easiest parts of Afghanistan find an alternative role to augment what the international coalition is doing until we are all ready to transfer fully to Afghan authority.

Paul Flynn: A quarter of the Afghan national mercenary army desert every year. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, in the last six months, the number of new recruits has been exceeded by the number of deserters?

Liam Fox: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the total target set by the Afghan Government for the Afghan national security forces has been exceeded, that the number of recruits to the Afghan national army is more than two months ahead of schedule, and that the number of people entering the Afghan national police is increasing.
	I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a particularly positive trend in the Afghan national police as a result of a change of policy in Kabul. The pay for those entering the national police is now the same as the amount paid to the army, which has helped to increase recruitment. Moreover, literacy lessons are now provided for those joining the Afghan national police. In a country in which literacy levels are barely above 20%, that makes a major difference to recruitment to the security forces.

Peter Tapsell: Why did British Ministers choose to ignore the advice given to them on Afghanistan by our exceptionally distinguished former ambassador to Kabul, as a result of which he has asked to be transferred to other duties?

Liam Fox: The Government take advice from a wide range of sources; we are not in Afghanistan on a unilateral basis, but as part of an international coalition. Decisions are taken jointly with those in the international community. We listen to a wide range of experience but are not always able to satisfy every opinion.

British Troops Under US Command (Helmand)

Patrick Mercer: How many British troops are under US command in Helmand province.

Nick Harvey: There are no British troops under US national command. The majority of British forces in Helmand, around 6,500, are assigned to the International Security Assistance Force mission, under the command of Commander Regional Command (South West), who is currently a US Marine Corps general. The remainder of UK Forces in Helmand fall under UK national command.

Patrick Mercer: There are elements on the Opposition benches and in some parts of the media who seem to suggest that coalition warfare never involves, or should not involve, one nation subordinating its troops to another. British troops have been under American command since at least 1917 and vice versa. The system has worked well. Will the Minister give the lie to the nonsense that such things actually impede our sovereignty rather than help it?

Nick Harvey: I readily agree with my hon. Friend that that must indeed be the case. I must also point out that it has been agreed that the UK will take command of Regional Command (South West) on a rotational basis in Afghanistan. More to the point, we should remember that, as part of the ISAF mission, a UK general currently commands Regional Command (South), which includes troops from the US, Canada, Australia and Romania among others. It works both ways and we are all the stronger together for it.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent progress his Department has made on the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Liam Fox: We are in the final stages of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. The Department has concluded its detailed policy and capability studies and concluded the force testing process. No decisions have yet been taken by the National Security Council.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I wish my right hon. Friend well in dealing with the numerous problems left by the previous Government. Does he agree that, despite the need for greater co-operation with our allies on procurement and acquisition, we still need to maintain our own world-beating design and manufacturing base if we are to have true operational sovereignty?

Liam Fox: It is vital for the UK clearly to identify our sovereign capability requirements and to pursue them rigorously. That is why we will publish a consultation document later in the year, asking for full consultation on the process to ensure that we have the industrial capability, skills base and regulatory framework to ensure that what my hon. Friend has outlined is made possible.

Angus Robertson: Since the last strategic defence review, more than 10,000 defence jobs have been lost in Scotland. Bases have been closed and regiments amalgamated, and there has been a mammoth defence underspend of £5.6 billion. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the Ministry of Defence will take these facts into account and ensure that consideration and fairness is given to defence spending in all the nations and regions of the UK?

Liam Fox: The priority in the defence review is to ensure that the UK has at its disposal what it needs for its wider national security and that the industrial implications of that are taken into account. I intend to have discussions with the devolved Administrations over the coming weeks to be fully apprised of their concerns about the industrial implications of the SDSR. Ultimately, in a constrained financial environment the No. 1 procurement priority is to ensure that the armed forces have what they need when they need it at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

Julian Lewis: Given the highly specialised tasks involved in defending our airspace for the indefinite future, does the Secretary of State agree that it would not, in any way, compromise the integrity of the strategic defence and security review if he were to state today, in the week in which we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the climax of the battle of Britain, that he will give no time to the strategically illiterate suggestion that the Royal Air Force should be abolished and absorbed into the other two services?

Liam Fox: In general it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the SDSR, but I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the Royal Air Force will continue.

Bob Ainsworth: May I say to the Secretary of State that the leaders of industry, as well as the trade unions, are enormously worried that adequate evaluation of the industrial ramifications is not taking place ahead of the main decisions of the SDSR? He cannot do this in sequence without taking huge risks. Will he ensure that the industrial consequences of the review are fully evaluated-or is the timetable being dictated by the Treasury?

Liam Fox: The biggest risk that we face in our security is that we have a muddled and incoherent defence programme left over from the previous Government. Before the Labour party lectures the coalition Government about the financial implications that we face, it might want to remember that with a defence budget of some £35 billion a year, it has left behind an overspend in the equipment programme of £38 billion by 2020, with which we are going to have to deal.

Equipment Funding

Matthew Offord: What recent representations he has received on funding for equipment for UK troops in combat operations.

Peter Luff: The coalition Government are absolutely committed to funding equipment required for UK troops on operations. In June, the Prime Minister announced uplifts totalling £256 million for equipment for Afghanistan and, on top of that, the MOD and the Treasury continue to approve new urgent operational requirements-more than £95 million since June. I am also delighted to be able to tell the House that the latest armoured all-terrain vehicle, Warthog, arrived in Afghanistan on Friday.

Matthew Offord: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that improvised explosives devices are now the favourite weapon of the Taliban in Helmand province and are causing more of our troops to be killed and injured, will the Secretary of State tell us what he is doing to ensure that our brave soldiers have the necessary equipment to counter this deadly threat?

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise this very serious threat to our forces. We recognise fully the rapidly evolving threat of IEDs and take all possible measures to combat them. While visiting our troops in Afghanistan on 10 June, the Prime Minister announced an additional £67 million for the counter-IED campaign; this will include specialist dogs, bespoke counter-IED Mastiff vehicles, remote-controlled vehicles, and equipment to neutralise and analyse IEDs. In addition, the MOD and the Treasury continue to approve new equipment to counter the impact of IEDs through the urgent operational requirements process. Since June, an additional £50 million of new counter-IED UORs have been approved, including sophisticated detection equipment, new personal protective clothing and the new counter-IED collective training capability-it is a pretty good story.

Bob Ainsworth: May I ask the Minister to try to answer this question, rather than to rant in the way that the Secretary of State did in response to my previous question? Can the Minister tell us why the Government have delayed the deployment of the new Chinook helicopters ordered last December?

Peter Luff: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants to make mischief on this particular issue, but he is confusing two separate issues. Commanders on the ground will always welcome enhanced helicopter capability-of course they will-and we will do what we can to deliver it. However, military commanders have confirmed that they have the helicopters they need to carry out the tasks that they have been given. Since November 2006, helicopter availability has increased considerably- by 140%-and more Chinook mark 3s will be available for deployment in the months ahead. These kinds of criticisms from those on the Labour Benches would be better made if they had not left us with this wretched £38 billion overspend.

Julian Brazier: The House will have noticed a certain role reversal just then. On helicopters in Afghanistan, may I urge my hon. Friend to look hard at the practice of the Americans, nearly half of whose combat helicopters are piloted by reservists? Such an approach would make a huge saving to the taxpayer and guarantee a large number of flying hours on the part of those operating them.

Peter Luff: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I am aware that he has made it on a number of occasions. Of course we benefit from the activities of American pilots in Afghanistan and I assure him that we will continue to do so.

Mental Health Care

Chris Evans: What recent assessment he has made of the provision of mental health care for members of the armed forces and for veterans.

Andrew Robathan: The Ministry of Defence has a wide range of measures in place to monitor and manage the mental health of serving personnel, and has been exploring with the NHS to ensure ex-service personnel get the care they require. The current strategic defence and security review will include consideration of possible enhancements to medical care, including improved mental health care. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Prime Minister has asked my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) to conduct an independent study into the provision of support and services to the armed forces and ex-service personnel and to make recommendations for improvement, particularly in the area of mental health.

Chris Evans: I thank the Minister for that response. Given that he implied on BBC "File on 4" in June that he does not believe people should be screened for mental health problems, will he give an assurance that the Government are still committed to a compulsory mental health check for people on discharge from the services?

Andrew Robathan: If I might say so, the hon. Gentleman misquotes what I said on "File on 4". We take mental health very seriously; for instance, as I said in answer to an earlier question, we are looking into post-traumatic stress disorder and, indeed, I will visit the King's Centre for Military Health Research next month to discuss that matter with Professor Wessely. It is very important that we take mental health seriously, and we are looking at how we can identify mental health problems, but I am not a clinician-I am not aware whether the hon. Gentleman is-so I cannot take other than the advice of mental health professionals who say it is very difficult to screen people correctly and accurately for mental health problems until they present themselves with those problems.

Claire Perry: May I ask the Minister to continue to recognise the wider impact of combat stress, particularly on Army families? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) alluded, and as we discussed when I went to the launch of a new charity in Tidworth, combat stress has a huge impact on the wives, children and husbands of serving armed forces members. Please will the Minister also confirm that other measures, such as our educational premium for Army children and scholarships for the children of the fallen, will survive the spending review, as they are critical to bolstering the military covenant?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend has put her finger on exactly the right spot: we are looking at the military covenant and how we may enhance the relationship between the Government and people of this country and the armed forces and the work they do. We are looking very closely at some of the issues my hon. Friend mentioned. As she will know, one or two of them are covered in the coalition agreement for Government document and I think it highly unlikely that any Minister would dare renege on that programme for Government.

Kevan Jones: First, may I say that I agree totally with the Minister's opposition to screening for mental health? He is right on that. Contrary to the rhetoric before the last general election, as a member of the last Labour Government I was pleased to be part of an Administration who delivered the seven mental health pilots and the partnership agreement between Combat Stress and the Ministry of Defence and who funded the research at the King's Centre for Military Health Research. Can the Minister give an assurance that those mental health pilots will be rolled out and that he will fight hard to ensure that not only are the lessons learned but the money is there to support them?

Andrew Robathan: I am glad that we are agreeing about so much today, but I am afraid that I cannot prejudge the SDSR in any way, shape or form as that is more than my job is worth. However, I will say this: I think it highly unlikely that we will reduce the mental health services provided for our serving and ex-service personnel because, frankly, we have made commitments on that and we cannot possibly renege on them.

Cyber-Security

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to develop a military cyber-security policy.

Liam Fox: Cyber-security is an important element of the SDSR and has already had considerable consideration. Decisions on enhancing our capabilities will form part of the review, which we will announce to the House later this autumn.

Andrew Selous: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much interdepartmental co-operation there is on these issues, which remain a very serious, if invisible, threat to the United Kingdom, and one that the MOD should not have to shoulder on its own?

Liam Fox: I entirely agree with the sentiments at the end of my hon. Friend's question. Indeed, this is a cross-governmental problem, and it is one of the matters in which there is a huge advantage from dealing with it under the National Security Council because that means we are able to consider it in a cross-governmental manner. It would be quite wrong if the enhancements to cyber-security that protected all of government were to fall only on parts of it. It therefore makes sense to look at the concept of how we approach it both on a budgetary and a functional basis.

Madeleine Moon: If we are to develop an effective cyber-security policy and to think forward, we must also invest in research and development. Will the Minister give a commitment to ensuring that as part of the defence and security review there will be sufficient capacity for research and development, particularly on cyber-security?

Liam Fox: Investing in better cyber-security will not be an option for the United Kingdom. What is being considered under the National Security Council as part of the SDSR is how that occurs. We will face increasing threats in cyberspace in the years ahead-the question is how we identify the weakest areas, which need to be looked at first, and how we develop the technologies so that, as the other technologies that might affect us continue to evolve, we are best protected. That will require us to look at research across the board.

Defence Export Sales (Taiwan)

Ben Wallace: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on support for defence export sales to Taiwan.

Gerald Howarth: Defence Ministers have had no engagement with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on support for defence export sales to Taiwan.

Ben Wallace: I thank the Minister for that answer. Given that a fundamental plank of our procurement policy is exportability and in light of the fact that the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has an historical lukewarm attitude to our aerospace industry, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that there is no official or unofficial policy on the part of this Government to oppose or block arms sales to Taiwan-a friend in that part of the world and somewhere with which British industry can do business?

Gerald Howarth: First, may I confirm to my hon. Friend and to the House that the Government attach the highest priority to defence exports? The procurement decisions that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), will be making as Minister for procurement will be based on considering exportability as a key factor. As for Taiwan, I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) that there is, as I understand it, no reason why defence exports should not be made to Taiwan. He will understand the sensitivities involved, and that although the licensing of defence exports is primarily a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, that Department nevertheless consults both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and that that is the right way to proceed. I take note of my hon. Friend's invitation to explore another market where we might make some progress.

Topical Questions

Andrew Stephenson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Liam Fox: My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks and that we honour the military covenant.

Andrew Stephenson: On Saturday I visited Euravia, a company that repairs and overhauls aircraft engines, which is located in Kelbrook in my constituency, for the presentation of the Queen's award for enterprise in the international trade category. Does the Secretary of State agree that high-tech manufacturing jobs play a vital role in our economy?

Peter Luff: It is difficult not to agree with that very important statement. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Of course, defence manufacturing jobs play a particularly important part in the high-tech end of manufacturing. We will bring forward a defence industrial and technology policy Green Paper later this year, which I hope will underline the importance of that issue.

Bob Ainsworth: In May, the Secretary of State said that
	"there is no lack of clarity in the Government's policy: we believe in a continuous, at-sea, minimum, credible, nuclear deterrent, based on the Trident missile system. I hope that that is explicit enough".-[ Official Report, 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 272.]
	Will the Secretary of State repeat that?

Liam Fox: Well, I am not sure that I need to repeat it -put simply, I agree with it.

Andrew Selous: Given the importance of stability in Pakistan to this country's security, will my right hon. Friend say what assistance this country's armed forces are giving to the armed forces of Pakistan at the moment?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that Pakistan is a very important security partner if the gains that we have made in Afghanistan are to be maintained in the longer term. We must help with the technical capability of the Pakistani security forces in policing and with their wider military capabilities and we must also encourage the Pakistani Government to maintain the necessary political drive behind the process. In particular, it is vital that the Pakistani Government recognise that it is their duty to deal with the Afghan Taliban and not just with the Pakistan Taliban if we are to get security in the longer term.

Ann McKechin: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent reports on the failure of UN forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to prevent the horrific scale of rapes and violent attacks against women. Will he confirm what priority he and this Government will be taking in promoting UN security resolution 1325 and in tackling violence against women in conflict areas?

Liam Fox: We take this responsibility extremely seriously. In conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary we will continue to push to ensure that the rights of women in those areas are fully protected because what we have seen in recent years, particularly the use of rape as a weapon of war, is utterly disgusting to any civilised part of the world.

Jo Swinson: The bodies of five people working for the Afghan woman MP Fauzia Gailani were recently found after having been abducted by the Taliban. Their hands had been tied and they had been shot in the head. With the elections this Saturday, many candidates and their staff, especially women, fear for their safety. What are the Government doing to ensure that the integrity of the elections is not compromised by the security threat posed by the Taliban?

Nick Harvey: I entirely share my hon. Friend's abhorrence of what has happened and I am sure that everyone in the House would condemn those appalling murders outright. We are working with the Government of Afghanistan and with international partners to ensure that female candidates and voters have an increased level of support, but the Afghan national army and national police have the lead throughout Afghanistan in providing security for the elections as they did successfully during the presidential elections last year. On the ground, ISAF forces, including UK forces in Helmand, will provide support such as ISTAR-intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance-to assist the Afghans, and partnered UK-Afghan combined forces will stand ready to provide any further assistance that may be required.

Michael Dugher: Tomorrow in St John the Baptist church in Cudworth in my constituency there will be a memorial service and dedication to the memory of Captain Martin Driver of 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died earlier this year. Will the Government join me in paying tribute to that truly outstanding individual and in sending condolences to his family and friends?

Liam Fox: I have the greatest pleasure in doing so. It is always worth our remembering that we are extremely fortunate in this democratic country to have people who volunteer to put life and limb at risk for the security of their fellow citizens. We should remember the heroic sacrifices that they make at every opportunity. When there are those who, as we have seen in recent times, protest against what our armed forces do, the correct answer is not to restrict what they get to say but for more of us to get on to the streets in every possible way, including at the sort of ceremony that the hon. Gentleman mentions, to show our support for our armed forces.

Peter Bone: Last Thursday, the House debated for the first time a substantive motion on the war in Afghanistan. Fifty-one Members spoke, many more attended and the Government's policy was supported overwhelmingly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in future, progress on the war will be reported to the House and that, in particular, any change in policy will be announced in the House first rather than to the media?

Liam Fox: May I begin by reiterating what I said in that debate, which is that for the House to have more control over its time is a positive step and that for it to have chosen Afghanistan as the subject for one of its first debates was an extremely positive development? We are committed to keeping Members of the House and of the other place fully informed about what is happening in operations. There is a further briefing by General Messenger this evening in the House. On the very first occasion that I was at this Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State I said that it was our intention to keep the House updated quarterly on Afghanistan: that will be undertaken by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and me.

Alison Seabeck: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department is having discussions with other Departments, including the Treasury, about the impact that the SDSR proposals will have, linked to the comprehensive spending review, on the skills base in places such as Plymouth? We in Plymouth, in the dockyard and the naval base, depend on those jobs; we are 309th out of 324 authorities in terms of being dependent on the public sector, so any loss of jobs or in the skills base will impact seriously on our local economy and on the Treasury.

Liam Fox: The hon. Lady raises an important question. In the deliberations we have had in the House on the defence industry and defence capabilities, I am not sure that the skills base has always been given the priority it ought to have. That is why as part of the consultation that I outlined earlier we will be specifically looking at the skills base, because if we are to look at the contribution to the defence industry, for example, of our small and medium-sized enterprises, the skills base, as well as the regulatory and fiscal frameworks, is key. Of course, as the hon. Lady knows, I cannot pre-empt the SDSR but these things are a very important part of the Government's wider defence industrial strategy, which we shall outline and welcome consultation on, in the months ahead.

David Davies: The circumstances of the death of former Ministry of Defence employee, Dr David Kelly, continue to leave many people feeling profoundly uneasy. Are those concerns shared within the Ministry of Defence and, if so, will the Minister be pushing other Departments to come up with a full, open and transparent investigation as soon as possible?

Nick Harvey: This matter is predominantly the responsibility of the Attorney-General. I am pleased that he has indicated that if any new evidence is put before him that would flesh out the concerns that have been expressed about the circumstances of Dr David Kelly's death, he would be willing to instruct that a fresh inquest should take place.

Robert Flello: Many former British military personnel are working in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq on UK and US Government security contracts. What steps are the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State taking to ensure that when former British military personnel lay their lives on the line, like their currently serving colleagues, the terms, conditions and welfare of those very brave men and women are looked into and they are looked after and taken care of?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman asks a very interesting question. Of course, people who go out to Afghanistan for commercial organisations are usually paid a great deal more than our service personnel, which is often why they have left the Army, for instance, to work for security companies. I pay tribute to their bravery in Iraq, now and in the past, and in Afghanistan, but I am not sure it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to compensate them should they be injured while on a commercial contract with a commercial company.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. If we are to make serious progress, we need rather pithier questions and answers from now on.

Sarah Newton: What recent assessment has the Secretary of State made of the benefit of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary cluster contract in reducing costs and improving efficiency?

Peter Luff: I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that her constituency is playing a major part in ensuring that those contracts are delivering, as it were, more for less, with much greater capability compared to previous contracting arrangements, at lower cost. I congratulate her constituents in Falmouth for the part they are playing.

William McCrea: In the light of the strategic defence and security review, can the Secretary of State assure the House that the coalition Government will maintain our forces' capability to protect UK interests across the world?

Liam Fox: In adopting the so-called adaptive posture the National Security Council specifically said that because we are unable to predict the exact nature of future conflict it was essential to maintain generic and flexible defence capabilities that can adapt to the sort of threats that may emerge in the future. That of course came on top of the Foreign Secretary's clearly stated aims that in a genuinely globalised economy where our economic interests are so widespread the United Kingdom cannot afford strategic shrinkage.

Douglas Carswell: The Minister has the unenviable task of running a Defence Department in a difficult financial climate. Does he agree that this makes it all the more vital that we get maximum value from our defence budget? Could we not achieve that if we bought more kit generically off the shelf, rather than through a protectionist defence industrial strategy?

Peter Luff: Obviously, the prime duty of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence is to ensure that our troops have battle-winning military superiority, but I agree with my hon. Friend that that can often be done by buying off the shelf. Strangely, in a fast-moving technological world, that can often mean superior products with lower operational risk, which brings double benefits. As I have emphasised, there are many areas in which sovereign capability is absolutely vital, and cannot be prejudiced-for example, in cryptography.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State rightly mentioned the importance of skills to our armed personnel. Will he take the opportunity to reaffirm the previous Government's commitment to the building of a new defence training college at St Athan in south Wales?

Liam Fox: The whole training defence review and its consequences, including St Athan, will be looked at as part of the wider strategic defence review.

Desmond Swayne: I declare an interest as a serving Territorial Army officer. In considering the defence review, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the important role of reservists in recent military conflict, and the potentially more important role that they might play in future conflicts?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Hon. Members: "Gallant."] Indeed; my hon. and gallant Friend, if hon. Members like, because he certainly is. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), as they have both served in operational theatres, gaining invaluable experience, which they bring to the House to provide knowledge for those debates from which it may conceivably be lacking. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), and to the reservists. He is absolutely right: historically, for instance in both the first and second world wars, it was the Territorial Army, the yeomanry and so on who made up the bulk of our forces who defeated our enemies.

Luciana Berger: As well as being a world leader in weather forecasting, the Met Office is playing an increasingly important role in accurately monitoring climate change. What discussions has the Secretary of State had regarding its privatisation?

Liam Fox: I have not been involved in any specific discussions so far, but we will certainly look at all the assets owned by the Ministry of Defence to determine whether they offer value for money or whether, in the current fiscal climate, we need to be able to realise the value of some of our assets.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating cadet forces in the year in which they celebrate 150 years of activity in the UK? What assurances can he offer the combined cadet forces so that they can play their part in the big society following the strategic defence review?

Liam Fox: Well, they keep digging. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the role of the cadets, who play an important part as a bridge between society as a whole and the armed forces. They are greatly to be encouraged, and we are looking at ways in which we can make them more effective as part of the SDSR.

John Woodcock: When the Secretary of State was in opposition, he repeatedly and convincingly made the case that delays to projects ended up costing the UK taxpayer more and put at risk our prized skills base. Will he rule out any such delay in the Trident successor programme or anything else in the strategic defence review?

Liam Fox: I would love to be able to give just such an assurance, but as I pointed out earlier, with a defence budget of £35 billion or so a year, we inherited an overspent equipment programme of £38 billion. The Opposition may not regard that as a priority, but dealing with it is a priority for the coalition Government if we are to put our armed forces and our defence industry on a sound, stable and predictable footing for the future.

Proposed Public Expenditure Cuts

Bob Russell: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his additional proposals for cuts in public expenditure. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question.

George Osborne: I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the progress of the spending review, and to remind people of the context in which we make these difficult decisions.
	The previous Government left Britain with the largest budget deficit of any major economy and no credible plan to deal with it. That was a major cause of instability and uncertainty that threatened any prospect of economic recovery. It was reflected in the substantially higher market interest rates that British families and businesses were being charged compared with those for families and businesses in countries that were regarded as less exposed to sovereign credit risk. The new Government had to take urgent steps to restore stability and allay fears about our country's ability to pay its way in the world. In the words of the previous Labour Prime Minister,
	"if we fail to offer a convincing path out of debt, that...will itself plunge us into stagnation".
	Those views were echoed in the comments this weekend from the International Monetary Fund, which said that
	"fiscal consolidation remains essential for strong, sustained growth over the medium run".
	That is why in the Budget I announced decisive steps to get the deficit under control. I believe that that Budget has restored stability to the British economy and provided a sound basis for a sustainable recovery. It has helped keep down the market interest rates that Britain pays on its debts, which are today more than half a percentage point lower than at the general election. In other countries, such as Spain, Portugal or Ireland, these same rates have stayed broadly flat or gone up since then.
	Because of the measures that we are taking, independent forecasters are increasingly confident about the British economy. Last week the OECD predicted that the UK would see the strongest growth in the G7 this quarter and the second strongest growth next quarter. I can also tell the House that today the EU predicted that the UK will see the strongest recovery in the second half of this year of any major European economy. These, of course, are just forecasts and all this hard-won stability would be put at risk if we did not now implement the components of our Budget plan.
	Let me remind the House of the measures that we took at the emergency Budget and the steps that we now have to take. We are set to tighten the public finances by a total of £113 billion by 2014-15. Of this, £29 billion will come from tax measures, including the increase in VAT, higher capital gains tax and a new permanent levy on banks. A further £11billion will come from the welfare reforms announced at the Budget. Another £10 billion will come as a consequence of paying lower interest charges on the national debt as a result of our plan-£10 billion that those who opposed the Budget plan would have to find to pay the holders of Government debt.
	That leaves £61 billion that will come from reductions to departmental expenditure plans. It is worth reminding the House that £44 billion of that £61 billion was assumed in the figures left to us by the previous Government. In other words, for all the synthetic noise and fury that we hear, £3 of every £4 that we are having to cut were cuts that the Opposition were planning to make. Unfortunately, not a single one of those pounds was allocated to a specific programme.
	Our job now is to allocate those departmental budgets. That is the purpose of the spending review that is under way, and I will announce the full results to the House of Commons on 20 October. The review is informed by the largest public consultation exercise ever undertaken on public expenditure. More than 100,000 substantive ideas have been received from members of the public. Teams at the Treasury have been sifting through these ideas over the past six weeks and some are already being implemented.
	We have also created a mechanism for collective discussion of spending issues across the Cabinet, which is something of an innovation, so the Prime Minister- [Interruption.] Well, there was a Cabinet Committee on life chances, on talent and on democratic renewal under the previous Government, but no permanent committee on public expenditure. The Public Expenditure Committee of the Cabinet has already met twice this month and will meet again this week.
	Of course, some decisions that shape the spending review have already been taken. We will protect the budget of the NHS with real increases, we will honour the commitments on international aid that we have made to the poorest in the world, and we will protect capital investment in our economic future. We have not reduced capital spending in future years beyond the plans that we inherited, and as we take further decisions, we will strive to ensure that those support economic growth, promote reform and local control, and are fair-fair between different sections of society and between different generations.
	Let me say something about welfare spending- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I tell the Chancellor that he has well exceeded his time? Allowance will have to be made for the Opposition Front Bench. That will happen today, but in future the time limits must be adhered to in this place.

George Osborne: I will heed your injunction, Mr Speaker, but the question was a very general one about an update on the public expenditure review.
	I shall say something about welfare, if the Speaker will allow me. The welfare bill has risen by 45% in the past 10 years and almost £1 in £3 that the Government spend goes towards welfare. The current system is not protecting those who genuinely cannot work, nor is it helping those desperately looking for work to find a new job quickly. Close to 5 million people are on out-of-work benefits, more than half of whom have spent at least half of the past 10 years in this situation. Rather than rewarding work and supporting the vulnerable, we are wasting the lives of millions of people. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is working with me and other Cabinet colleagues to see what we can do fundamentally to reform the welfare system so that it rewards work and supports aspiration, as well as saving the taxpayer on what someone once called the bills of social failure. When we have decisions to announce, we will bring them to the House and, of course, we will want to keep the House informed in other ways.
	I have already given the Treasury Committee an unprecedented power to veto my preferred candidate to chair the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, Mr. Robert Chote, and I can tell the House today that I have asked my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Southport (Dr Pugh) to draw on their considerable expertise on the Public Accounts Committee in the last Parliament to advise the Government on how to improve the financial management systems that we have inherited, and in turn improve accountability to the House.
	We have many difficult choices to make, but one thing is clear: one party created this mess; two parties are working hard to clear it up.

Bob Russell: If the Chancellor wished to give a full statement to the House, he could have done so last week rather than giving a cursory one to the BBC and having to be dragged here today. I acknowledge that 75% of the cuts are Labour's cuts, but we have not as yet had the spending review. Clearly, none of the cuts will affect the quality of life of Members of Parliament, but they will certainly affect the disadvantaged in society. We know that there will be higher food costs in the coming year, and other costs will rise. I have no time for the welfare cheats, but to try to blame this country's financial ills on that small category of the population is unethical. It would be more ethical to act with equal determination towards those who cheat on tax, whether it be income tax, value added tax or corporation tax. There is now a whole industry of financial experts advising people on tax avoidance.
	The turf war between the Chancellor's office and that of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is somewhat immature. Children living below the poverty line and people on low incomes, the disadvantaged in society, do not want this fun and games, they want fairness.

George Osborne: The position on welfare is exactly as I set out in my Budget speech at this Dispatch Box when I said that if we could find further savings on welfare, we would be able to reduce the pressure on other Departments. That was what we were planning to do over the coming months as part of the spending review, and that is exactly what I said in the television interview to which my hon. Friend refers.
	Secondly, it would be impossible to conduct a spending review without looking at the welfare bill. Whether one was looking for £61 billion of savings or £44 billion, welfare spending accounts for a third of the entire Government budget, so one has to look at the welfare budget. That is what we are doing, but we are looking to do it in a way that reforms welfare, to help those millions of people who have been trapped for a decade or more on out-of-work benefits into work, to help those with aspirations to improve their income, to make sure that work is rewarded by the benefit system, and to do that while we are protecting those who cannot work and protecting the most vulnerable in our society. I would argue that the failure on welfare reform over the last decade was one of the greatest failures of the previous Government.
	Despite the lurid headlines in some newspapers, the relationship and the co-operation between the Treasury and the DWP is strong. There is a perfectly natural- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chancellor must be heard. This sedentary chuntering needs to come to an end. I want to hear the Chancellor.

George Osborne: It is an improvement on the situation under the previous Government, where there was absolutely no contact between the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor. The two Departments are working very well. Obviously the Treasury is interested in financial management and control: that is a proper part of our function. My right hon. Friend has inspirational plans that he has worked on to reform welfare and get people working, and the two of us are working together with colleagues in the Cabinet to make that happen.
	Let me finally say something about the tax gap and people who do not pay their taxes. Later this week, figures will be produced-independent figures, not produced by me-which will show the latest situation on the tax gap that we have inherited: in other words, the gap between what should be collected in tax and what is not collected in tax at the moment. Judging by previous figures I have seen, I think that the House will be pretty staggered by this number.  [ Interruption. ] Labour Members seem to forget that their people were in power for 13 years. We have inherited this situation, and we will be taking steps to reduce tax avoidance, including tax avoidance by the richest people in our society, so that everyone makes a contribution.

Yvette Cooper: The shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary are not in Westminster today, Mr Speaker, and you will be aware that I had asked a similar urgent question of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so it is good that the Chancellor is replying, although very unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has chosen not to come to respond.
	On Thursday, the Chancellor told the BBC that the Government were cutting an additional £4 billion from out-of-work benefits. The BBC website says:
	"The government is planning to reduce the annual welfare bill by a further £4bn, Chancellor George Osborne has told the BBC."
	Today, he has refused to tell the House what he told the BBC. Did the BBC correspondents just get it wrong? Did they mishear what he said? Will he now come clean and tell us what he has in fact got agreed and planned for the additional cuts that he wants to make to the welfare bills for the spending review? Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has agreed to £4 billion of additional cuts? Will he admit that the timing of this interview had nothing to do with reaching agreement on the spending review with the Work and Pensions Secretary and everything to do with getting Andy Coulson off the BBC headlines for the day?
	In June, the Chancellor wrote to the Secretary of State:
	"I am pleased that you, the prime minister, and I have agreed to press ahead with reforms to the ESA as part of the spending review that deliver net savings of at least £2.5bn by 2014/15."
	His Chief Secretary said yesterday that this was not agreed; well, is it agreed or isn't it?
	The Chancellor is not being straight with the House- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is normally a pretty equable fellow; he is getting a little over-excited. I must ask the right hon. Lady to withdraw that term. No Minister would be other than straight with the House. She will find another word, I feel sure.

Yvette Cooper: I certainly accept your point, Mr Speaker. I am sure that no Minister would want not to be straight with the House, and I am sure that the Chancellor will be. I withdraw any suggestion that he was not, because I am sure that he will be.
	Will the Chancellor confirm, therefore, that saving an additional £4 billion from getting people into work will require new jobs for 800,000 people, at a time when his own Office for Budget Responsibility says that far from creating an extra 800,000 jobs, his Budget will cut 100,000 jobs from the economy in each and every year?
	The Chancellor has also said that he plans to target the workshy and those who are fit for work. Will he confirm, however, that savings from getting those who are fit for work off sickness benefits are already built into the Treasury figures, and that cutting an extra £2.5 billion from employment support allowance would hit only those who have been through the new, tougher test and who even his Ministers agree are genuinely too sick or too disabled to work? Is it not the truth that he is planning to cut the level of support for some of the most vulnerable people in society? Will he confirm that someone who is on employment support allowance, and has been through the test, is already facing a £285 cut in the value of their ESA and an average £650 cut in their housing benefit as a result of his plans?
	The Chancellor claims to support jobs and to be progressive, but he is doing the opposite. The truth is that his plans hit the poorest harder than the rich, women harder than men and children and pensioners worst of all. Now he has shown that he is targeting those who are most sick and disabled in society. Is it not the truth that he has decided to hit those whom he knows will find it harder to fight back? This is not progressive; it is a nasty attack, and he should withdraw it now.

George Osborne: First of all, I note that there has still not been a word of apology about leaving this country with the worst public finances in its history. Nor, by the way, has there been an apology for the complete failure, by the right hon. Lady and her predecessors as Secretary of State, to reform the welfare system, despite all those promises.
	In the Budget speech, I made it very clear that we were looking for additional savings to welfare. If the Labour party wants to propose some ideas to make up its £44 billion part of the savings package, perhaps it will contribute to this debate. Sadly, at the moment, we have had absolutely no ideas from it. It opposed the VAT rise; the pay freeze; the in-year savings; the housing benefit reforms; the tax credit reforms; the switch to the consumer prices index for benefits; and the abolition of child trust funds. It opposed all those things. They are £33 billion worth of cuts.
	Where are the Labour party's numbers? Where are its ideas? If it wants to engage with us in a real debate about how we reform welfare, protect the most vulnerable and help people who can work into work, we will be all ears. But at the moment there is a deafening silence from the Labour party.
	The right hon. Lady talks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions not being here. He happens to be at a conference in Europe about international labour market reforms. The shadow Chancellor is not here, and nor is a single one of the Labour party leadership contenders. That is because instead of talking about the national interest, they are courting the votes of vested interests.

Nadhim Zahawi: I congratulate the Chancellor on his innovative way of taking suggestions from the public on the spending challenge. Has he had any suggestions from the shadow Chancellor or the Labour party leadership contenders?

George Osborne: The answer to my hon. Friend is no. Since Labour Members called for a vote on the value added tax rise, we have discovered that actually the shadow Chancellor supports the VAT rise. So he did have ideas; he just did not tell us about them.

Barry Gardiner: If the recent report from BDO Stoy Hayward, which says that we could be back in recession by Christmas, proves true, how many more billions will the Chancellor take off the most vulnerable in society?

George Osborne: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the central forecasts produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the OECD and the European Commission. They forecast steady and sustainable growth over the coming period. I take the view-a view shared by quite a number of people who observe the British economy-that if we had not put in place, in the Budget, a credible plan to reduce the budget deficit, this country would be in an economic mess.

Andrew Tyrie: The Chancellor helpfully published, decile by decile, the distributional effects of a number of his measures in the Budget. But the exclusion from his analysis of a number of other measures has led to a lot of controversy about whether his Budget is progressive or regressive. Will he now commit to publishing in the comprehensive spending review a full analysis of all the measures in aggregate, decile by decile, so that we can see whether their effects will be progressive or regressive?

George Osborne: First, let me say to my hon. Friend that the previous Government never published any distributional impacts as part of their Budgets. We have begun that work in the Red Book. We said that we wanted to receive comments about how we could improve the work. There is a real challenge, of which my hon. Friend is well aware, given all his experience, to do with the modelling of some of the impacts. The Treasury model, which, of course, we inherited-we did not create a new Treasury model-has made it very difficult to model certain expenditure changes.
	We will continue to try to provide Parliament with the best information that we can, but I do not want to promise to deliver something that I cannot actually deliver.

Kate Green: I welcome the Chancellor's repeated commitment to supporting people back into work. Can he confirm that benefits savings that may be achieved will be prioritised for DWP back-to-work programmes and, in particular, that the funding needed to meet the objectives of dynamic benefits will be provided to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as a first call on any savings on the benefits bill?

George Osborne: We have a dual task. We have a welfare bill that represents a third of all Government spending; and, given that at least half the Labour party-I think-still believes in trying to reduce the deficit, we have to find savings from the welfare bill. At the same time, we are seeking a fundamental reform of welfare to encourage people into work. Bringing those two objectives together is precisely what I am working on with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Mike Hancock: I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to hear the comment about going after those who deliberately avoid paying tax-it would be interesting to know when we will hear how that will be achieved-but more importantly, the Chancellor mentioned the phrase "protection of the vulnerable" several times in his statement today. I would be interested to know how that is going to be achieved, and when he will explain to the House how the vulnerable in our society-including the very poor-will get the protection that they deserve.

George Osborne: Let me give my hon. Friend a specific example: disability living allowance. We were faced with a number of options, but we decided that we wanted to keep it as a universal benefit, and instead look at the criteria that allowed people to get on it and ensure that they were entitled to stay on it. We are particularly conscious of benefits on which people in vulnerable positions are dependent, but with each benefit, we are proceeding with caution, seeking as wide a consensus as possible. However, my hon. Friend has my commitment that we are doing everything that we can to protect the vulnerable during this process. I would also make a general observation: the thing that really hurts the most vulnerable in our society is when a country loses control of its public finances.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor really aware that as a result of these successive sadistic statements about cuts, war pensioners are ringing Members of Parliament and people who are severely disabled are frightened to death of losing their benefits? Is it not time that he had the gall to tell the truth: that this is all about using the deficit, which we had planned for, as an opportunity to carry out the Tory ideology of cutting the power of the state?

George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman is now a Blairite, I thought that I would read out what his master said recently, which is relevant to what he has just said:
	"I look at those policy papers now-the work on...the use of social security budgets...and I do think how different it would have been if we had done it. If we had...not wandered into a cul-de-sac of mixed messages and indecision... But there it is. It didn't happen, and that's it."
	We are trying to do the things that he once promised in his election manifesto.

Margot James: In his article yesterday, David Smith, the economics editor of  The Sunday Times, reminded us that the structural deficit had averaged 2.7% since 2003 and that we inherited planned tax rises and expenditure cuts of £73 million. Given the positive reaction of the markets to his Budget of a few months ago, what does the Chancellor think would happen if he did not persist with these tough but very necessary measures?

George Osborne: The answer is simple: there would be a catastrophic loss of confidence in Britain and an increase in market interest rates, which would hit every business and family. That would lead to an increase in unemployment, which is why we are not prepared to take the prescription offered by at least some of the people standing for the leadership of the Labour party.

Andrew Love: The Chancellor ought to read the International Monetary Fund report on that subject. The economy is slowing, business confidence and business investment are flat, and net trade is going through the floor rather than through the roof. In those circumstances, is it not folly of the first order to cut public expenditure? Is not the Chancellor threatening a double-dip recession-the very thing we do not need?

George Osborne: The people who are talking down the British economy are the Opposition. Since the hon. Gentleman mentioned the IMF, let me remind him what it said this weekend:
	"Fiscal consolidation remains essential for strong, sustained growth over the medium term."

Matthew Hancock: Since the election, the interest rates on gilts at two and three years-the kind of time periods that people borrow for their mortgages-have halved. Does the Chancellor think that that has anything to do with the new Government getting to grips with the nation's finances?

George Osborne: I think it does have something to do with the new Government setting out their plan, and it is easy to see why. We can compare what has happened to market interest rates for the United Kingdom with market interest rates for countries such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece. At the time of the general election, it was well understood that people in the world were concerned about the record UK budget deficit, the largest in the G20. As a result of the steps that we have taken in the Budget-which we now need to see through in the spending review-we have restored stability to the economy and helped to bring down market interest rates. That would not have happened if Labour had stayed in office.

Caroline Lucas: How does the Chancellor think that slashing jobs at tax offices up and down the country will help with the collection of the £120 billion that is lost every year through tax evasion and tax avoidance in this country? What other measures does he have in mind for collecting that money, which could be saved and used to prevent these enormous cuts, which are going to hit the poorest the hardest?

George Osborne: As I was saying in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), we are keen to ensure that the tax gap is reduced and that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is an organisation that is able to collect that tax that is due to us all. Unfortunately, as has been well documented in recent days, we have inherited a whole string of problems, including 6 million people being given the wrong tax information under the previous Government. We are putting in place the measures that I believe will improve HMRC and enable it to focus on reducing that tax gap.

Dan Byles: Does the Chancellor agree with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who said in 1996:
	"Losing control of public spending doesn't help the poor"?

George Osborne: It is not often that I say this, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath on that. Maybe one day he will turn up in the House of Commons and explain what he meant.

Christopher Leslie: Instead of hitting the sick and the disabled with these cuts, why does not the Chancellor tackle the bankers' welfare bill by reversing his ridiculous decision to give a £1 billion cut in corporation tax to the banks?

George Osborne: Over the past 13 years, Labour allowed the banking system to become completely unregulated and presided over the biggest banking crisis of our lifetime. At the time of the general election, I remember arguing in the television debates for a bank levy to be introduced in this country even if other countries did not introduce it. The then Chancellor opposed me on that. We have now introduced the levy, and I see that it has been universally accepted by the people who opposed it just a few months ago. The receipts from the levy massively outweigh any gain that comes from the lower corporation tax, and that was taken into account when I set the level of the bank levy at £2.5 billion.

Malcolm Bruce: Why, if the previous Government were so successful in achieving economic success, did the welfare bill rise by 47%? Is it not the case that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister threw prudence to the winds? Is not getting the public finances in order the best way to stop hitting the sick and the vulnerable? Should not all Members of the House work together to champion the sick and the poor, rather than scaremongering when we do not have the details?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. People will remember that, in the mid-1990s, a central part of the then new Labour party's claim to office was that it was going to reduce the bills of social failure. No doubt that was in all the election addresses that it delivered at the time. It did not do that, however; the welfare bill went up by 45%, and its former leaders are now telling us candidly that they completely failed. We are going to succeed where they failed.

Anne McGuire: I am always astonished that when Members move over to the Government side of the House, they ask for less spending on welfare than they did when they were on the Opposition side. I was visited on Friday by a severely disabled constituent who was seriously worried about her future. Why has the Chancellor promoted the legitimate debate on welfare reform by contextualising it with reference to those who abuse the system-for whom there is no support on either side of the House-thereby sowing great seeds of concern among many disabled people and their families in the UK today?

George Osborne: It is difficult to see how we can have a debate on out-of-work benefits and how to reform them without at least addressing the issue of some people who should perhaps be doing more to get into work. Let me stress that we are doing everything we can to make sure that the poorest and the most vulnerable are helped, while rewarding work. If the right hon. Lady or any other Labour Member wants to make a positive contribution or propose a positive plan, we will listen to it.

Priti Patel: Will the Chancellor condemn the calls for civil disobedience coming from the trade unions in the light of the necessary spending decisions that have to be made in view of the economic mess left by the last Government?

George Osborne: I do not think that strike action would help anyone at this point in time. Again, the people who suffer most when countries lose control of their public finances are often those working in the public sector, so I would hope that the trade unions, like everyone else in our society, will work together to sort out this national problem-and do so in the national interest.

Chuka Umunna: The Chancellor's emergency Budget was criticised for adversely impacting on certain groups, not least women-indeed, it is subject to litigation in the courts at the moment by the Fawcett Society. With particular regard to the extra £4 billion of cuts announced by the Chancellor to the BBC last week, has he carried out an equality impact assessment of the effects of that measure?

George Osborne: Of course, as we prepare the comprehensive spending review, we will comply with the legislation on the statute book.

Peter Bone: Does the Chancellor appreciate that on the coalition Benches, there is unanimous support for his policy of shrinking the size of the state? Are we not lucky to have a Chancellor with the guts and ability to carry it out?

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for his last remark. The state currently consumes almost half of national income and I do not think that there is a serious contender for high office on the Labour side who does not think that it needs to come down. Unfortunately, not a single proposal has been forthcoming. It is quite remarkable that this is the most contentious issue that we are debating, yet the people who aspire to lead the Labour party have absolutely nothing to say about it.

David Simpson: While there is action to be taken against those who have defrauded the benefit scheme, what are the Government doing to encourage those who are in genuine need of those benefits, and how are they going to be made available?

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman would know, first, that we are creating the new Work programme, which we believe will help people currently looking for work to get the skills and support they need to get into work. It will be a far better system than the one we inherited. Then there is the broader debate, alluded to in a number of questions, about how we reform the out-of-work benefit system to reward work and give people a greater incentive to take on additional hours of work. That is absolutely central to the debate.

Stephen Barclay: The recent independent report by the National Audit Office found that on the last Government's cost-reduction targets for 2010-11, only one Department had achieved even 50% of that target; that of the savings reported, only 38% could be relied upon; and that one Department had the distinction of achieving even less than 5% of its cost-reduction target. What representations has my right hon. Friend had on how to make up that shortfall?

George Osborne: Not many, is the answer. My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that what we used to hear from the Labour Government about efficiency savings-in the press releases issued at the time of their last Budget-was all guff. Anyone who has examined whether any of the former Government's claims stack up has found that they do not. It is another part of the Labour party's fraudulent record.

David Winnick: Does the Chancellor really believe that the Government's proposals will not be met with the widest opposition up and down the country? The Chancellor might dismiss this comment, but the Cabinet is playing with fire.

George Osborne: Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman: he sat on the Government Benches year after year while the budget deficit racked up; he allowed this country to have the largest budget deficit in the developed world. We are now seeking to reduce that budget deficit. The previous Government pencilled in but never identified £44 billion of public expenditure savings. If he wants to make a serious contribution to the debate, I suggest that he proposes some specific measures to deliver the plans on which he stood at the last general election.

Sajid Javid: Does my right hon. Friend have a view on why Labour Members continue to treat the entire British public like children? They spend, spend, spend, bringing our country to the verge of bankruptcy-

Mr Speaker: Order. There is much pressure on time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must ask a Minister about the policy of the Government, not the attitude of the Opposition. We will leave it there; the Chancellor can respond briefly if he wants, but he is under no obligation.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend said some very good things about how the Opposition treat the rest of the country like children.

Clive Efford: Formula grant for local government is about £24.5 billion, made up of just over £3 billion in revenue support grant and just over £21 billion from business rates. The cut is £6 billion, which leaves about £3 billion income from business rates that is not being redistributed in formula grant. Would not a good use of that money be the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable in our communities from the ravages of the cuts being imposed by the Government? Exactly how will businesses be accountable for what that £3 billion is used for?

George Osborne: As well as considering reforms to the formula grant, we took some steps earlier this year, and we hope to take further steps, to increase the freedoms that local authorities have to spend the money and to have fewer ring-fenced programmes from central Government Departments. We are looking at a review of the formula grant.

Nicholas Boles: If we do not put up VAT, do not cut defence expenditure-as the Labour party proposed during Defence questions-and do not cut the welfare bill, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) proposes, will the Chancellor confirm that the only way to have a sustainable budget is to slash spending on the NHS?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party has opposed the £13 billion VAT increase, even though we now know that the shadow Chancellor, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson all supported that increase; and it has opposed some of the other measures to which my hon. Friend refers. There is a difference when it comes to the NHS: I believe it is the official policy of the Labour party that the NHS should not be protected from cuts and should not have a real increase in funding. I happen to disagree with that policy, and we will see what the public think about it.

Liz Kendall: The Chair of the Treasury Committee asked the Chancellor to publish new details of the distributional impact of the Budget, including the proposed cuts to housing benefit and disability living allowance. Is the Chancellor aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies produced such an analysis last month? Is he aware that it says that
	"the overall effect of the new reforms announced in the June 2010 Budget is regressive, whereas the tax and benefit reforms announced by the previous Government" -
	for the same period-
	"are progressive"?
	In the light of that evidence, will he explain whether he still claims that his Budget and his Government are progressive?

Mr Speaker: Order. There were three questions there, but one answer will suffice.

George Osborne: I can do no better than repeat what the IFS said in the report to which the hon. Lady has referred. It said that in 2012,
	"Considering all tax and benefit reforms... the richest tenth of households lose the most in both cash and percentage terms."

Claire Perry: Does the Chancellor agree that there is nothing progressive about leaving 5 million people on out-of-work benefits-a system that condemns single women in particular to a lifetime of poverty-and that there is nothing progressive about leaving the Labour party's debts to the next generation to repay?

George Osborne: I can go better, and quote Lord Myners, who said:
	"There is nothing progressive about a Government who consistently spend more than they can raise in taxation, and... nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred by the current generation."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 625.]

Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to protect the most vulnerable. Will he intervene personally to solve the problem of a constituent of mine, who is severely epileptic, who has not received his tax credit for six weeks owing to the total inefficiency of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and who has no money whatsoever- [Interruption.] Don't you care about this man? He has no money whatsoever, and is only able to feed his family as a result of collections from his church. The chairman of the board says that it is nothing to do with him; will the Chancellor say that it is something to do with him?

George Osborne: Of course I take responsibility for the tax credit system that I have inherited. We know that there are real problems with the way in which it operates, and we are trying to establish how we can reform things in general. I will, however, look urgently at the case that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the House's attention: if he will give me the details this afternoon, I will get on to it straight away.

Jo Swinson: Like many Members of Parliament-although, perhaps, not the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)-I want to see cuts in our public services. I accept that they are, sadly, necessary to deal with the huge deficit that is Labour's legacy. Does the Chancellor agree that if any party is to have credibility in criticising specific cuts, it must present a realistic alternative that does not just saddle the next generation with thousands of pounds of debt?

George Osborne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The plethora of memoirs and interviews from people who were at the top of the Labour party until a few months ago have consistently made clear that it is not credible for the Labour party not to issue its own proposals and come up with its own ideas. As I have said, £44 billion of the cuts with which we are proceeding were pencilled in by the last Government, and they have between now and 20 October to tell us where those £44 billion of cuts would have fallen.

Anne Begg: On Saturday I attended a conference organised by the Aberdeen branch of the Disability Advisory Group. The people there were genuinely worried about the reassessment for disability living allowance and the medicalisation that has been announced. They were completely baffled, and kept asking, "Why us?" Whoever is to blame for the economic crisis, it is certainly not disabled welfare recipients. May I now ask the Chancellor, "Why them?"?

George Osborne: I respect the fact that the hon. Lady is the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, but I must tell her that the number of working-age people who claim disability living allowance has risen by more than 40% in the last decade, which is a substantial increase. When I considered reforms to the allowance, I saw that it would be possible to introduce such reforms as means-testing, but I rejected those. I said that it would be fairer to introduce an up-to-date assessment to help people to receive the benefit and ensure that they were eligible for it in future. I think that that is the fair way in which to proceed with this particular benefit, because I well understand that those who receive it are some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Charlie Elphicke: Can the Chancellor tell us whether, having bankrupted the country, the last Government left any detailed financial restraint, according to Treasury officials? This reminds me of the kids-the yobs-who smash the bus shelter and then throw stones at the people who are trying to clean up the mess. It is a disgrace.

George Osborne: The last Government left nothing except a letter from their Chief Secretary saying "I am sorry, but there is no money left".

David Lammy: Does the Chancellor recognise that most ordinary people consider a £2.5 levy for rich bankers to be grossly unfair, given that ordinary people are paying 10 times more? He can now do better with tax-dodgers. Does he expect Lord Ashcroft to pay more on 24 October?

George Osborne: We were the first major economy to introduce the banking levy. We were bitterly opposed in the run-up to the election by a Government, in whom I think the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, who told us that we should not introduce the banking levy until all the other countries had done so. We took a lead and introduced the banking levy, which will raise £2.5 billion. Since then, many other countries have followed our lead.  [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members say it's nothing or a pittance. If that is the case, why did they not introduce a levy? They had 13 years to do it and they did not. The only thing they did was cut capital gains tax, which we have had to increase.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. In recognition of the level of interest, I have given this question a very good run but, due to pressure of time, some people will have to be disappointed. We must now move on.

Queen's Speech (Date)

Denis MacShane: To ask the Leader of the House about his proposed date for the next Queen's Speech.

George Young: This morning, I issued a written ministerial statement to the House in relation to parliamentary Sessions. It set out that the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, which has its Second Reading this afternoon, proposes that parliamentary general elections will ordinarily take place on the first Thursday in May every five years. I decided that it was important to set out to the House at the earliest opportunity the Government's proposal that, subject to the successful passage of the Bill, it would be appropriate to move over to five 12-month Sessions over a Parliament beginning and ending in the spring.
	One of the benefits of this proposal is the greater certainty it brings to the parliamentary timetable. It also has the advantage of avoiding a final Session of only a few months, when-as we saw with the last Administration -Parliament is forced to consider a lame duck legislative programme of little significance.
	Under this proposal, Her Majesty's Gracious Speech on the occasion of the state opening of parliament will, in future, ordinarily take place in the spring, rather than in the autumn.
	In order to ensure a smooth transition, the Government have proposed that the current Session of Parliament will run until around Easter 2012. The next state opening of Parliament will therefore take place shortly afterwards. Dependent on progress on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, we envisage that the House would then move to a pattern of annual state openings in the spring, consistent with the new statutory provision for general elections to be held in the spring.
	Following the announcement of the proposals this morning, the Government intend to listen intently to right hon. and hon. Members' views, particularly during the passage of the Bill, and to work with the authorities of both Houses to implement the necessary changes.
	I am not able today to announce the specific date of the next Queen's Speech, as requested by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). As he well knows, the date can only be announced, as it usually is, nearer the time and only after proper consultation with the Palace. I am sure he would not want to short-circuit that process today. I intend to give the House as much notice as possible of future proposed recess dates and will issue a calendar of the future sitting days as soon as is practicable.
	This is a sensible response to a Bill in the coalition Government's programme that the Opposition support. It is announced in good time and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, during the Bill that will be debated this afternoon. Today's announcement will also ensure that Parliament has adequate time in this Session to debate and scrutinise the Government's legislative programme, which, as the House will be only too aware, was something consistently denied by the last Government. Far from being an affront to Parliament, it is one way in which this Government are empowering it.

Denis MacShane: The Leader of the House is an MP's MP and by far the nicer of the two Georges in the Cabinet. But this is not Eton, we are not his fags and he should not be the Prime Minister. It cannot be acceptable that a decision to abolish next year's Queen's Speech was not made in person to the House. Will he confirm that the Government have not discussed this constitutional change with Opposition parties via the usual channels, but that instead that he made his announcement in a wholly unilateral manner? This represents a major shift of power to the Executive at the expense of the people. Time is power in this or any democratic Parliament. This constitutional change allows the Government two years to extend their legislation, unlike the normal constitutional convention that a Bill not made into law within the year falls. Yes, there are carry-over provisions, but pushing the Queen's Speech back to 2012 is a major power grab by the Executive-I would have thought that the Lib Dems, above all, would want to have something to say on this. Does the Leader of the House agree that as we will now have to wait until May 2012 for the next Queen's Speech, we have plenty of time to debate the boundary changes Bill and we no longer need to rush the alternative vote referendum Bill through in just a few days?
	As  Hansard will confirm, on 25 May, the Deputy Leader of the House-our favourite bearded Lib Dem wonder-promised that the House would be at the centre of all constitutional change. That promise was broken this morning. He, at least, should resign and become a Liberal Democrat again, and I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the written statement, and bring it back for a full debate and a vote in the House of Commons.

George Young: May I return the compliment, by saying that of the two Denis's that confront me the right hon. Gentleman is by far the nicer?
	May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I totally reject his accusations that somehow this is taking power away from people? This is a wholly sensible proposition and it is right that the House should know the Government's intentions before it begins to debate the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill-that debate follows in a few moments' time. There are opportunities to carry over at the end of one Session, which he appeared to ignore, and we have allowed ample time to debate the constitutional Bills to which he has referred. Far from this being an insult to the House, at the earliest opportunity I made a written ministerial statement to the House, and the proposals that I have referred to will be debated in respect of the Bill that the House is shortly to address.

Duncan Hames: What consideration did the Leader of the House give to instead bringing forward the next Queen's Speech to May 2011?

George Young: If one were to do that, it simply would not give the House adequate time to debate fully the programmes announced in the last Queen's Speech.

Rosie Winterton: The Leader of the House has, in effect, announced today that the Government have abolished next year's Queen's Speech and given themselves an extra year to get through their legislation, including some very controversial Bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) said, time is power. Of course any Government may expect a reasonable time in which to get their legislation through, but if they are unable to do so, that legislation must fall. Will the Leader of the House confirm that no Session of Parliament, whether in wartime or peacetime, over the past century and a half has lasted for two years?
	May I, like my right hon. Friend, ask the Leader of the House to explain why he, as a Minister whose responsibility is to protect this House, chose to make such an important announcement in a written ministerial statement? His statement said that
	"it would be appropriate to move towards five, 12-month, sessions over a Parliament".
	So why has he not implemented that by the simple arrangement of having the first of those five Sessions finishing in May 2011? Is it that the Leader of the House wanted to protect the rights of this House but was simply overruled by those who wanted simply to protect their legislation? Is this what happens if the Leader of the House is not in the Cabinet speaking up for the rights of this House? There has been no consultation with other parties and with Parliament on this. He says that he will enable time for consultation, but his statement says that
	"the Government have decided that the current session of Parliament will"
	continue; it did not say that consultation will take place on this.
	The Government have made much of their "new politics" and of giving away power from the Executive to Parliament. So why is one of their first acts to give the Executive huge power by extending the time in which to get their legislation through? Does the Leader of the House not see that this is, in effect, an abuse of power? Will he, as my right hon. Friend asked him to do, withdraw his plans, consult Parliament properly and come back with proposals that respect Parliament and respect our democracy?

George Young: If we were to do what the right hon. Lady has just proposed and were to end this Session in May next year, we would have to guillotine all the Bills in the programme, and I suspect she would be the first to object if we were to rush the programme through on that timetable. Secondly, I laid a written ministerial statement before the House; I did not make this announcement on the "Today" programme, which is something that we grew used to in the last Parliament. I think the right hon. Lady should welcome the extra time that is now being given to this year's legislative programme, which contains some serious Bills and which will now get enough time to be debated.
	May I also just remind the right hon. Lady and other Front-Bench Members of what they did when they came into office in 1997? Without any consultation or discussion, they told the House they were changing the frequency of Prime Minister's questions from twice a week to once a week. We should contrast that with the 18-months' notice I have given of this proposal, which is also subject to the passage of a Bill.

Eleanor Laing: Is the Leader of the House encouraged by the synthetic anger of Opposition Members, who have had 13 years of losing control of Government business, guillotining Bills and not giving anything like enough time to consider important business? Will the Leader of the House confirm that when we come to the Committee stage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which we are about to discuss on Second Reading, the House will be able to examine the proposals he has just made in greater detail, thereby ensuring that the right balance between the Government and the House is maintained?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support, and she is right to point out that there will be more time to debate important constitutional reform under this Government than there was under the last one. Her point about raising this matter during the passage of that Bill is also a good one, and it was heard by both the Ministers who will be responsible for the Bill's passage and the Members who will be speaking on its Second Reading. I know that they will want to address the concerns she has just mentioned.

Graham Allen: May I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman calls "the greater certainty" this proposal "brings to the parliamentary timetable", but object on behalf of my Select Committee, which was elected by all Members of this House to scrutinise such matters? We have had two weeks to scrutinise the AV and parliamentary boundaries Bill, one week to scrutinise the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and now, it appears, at best one week to look at this proposal announced today. Will the Leader of the House stick to his word in writing to the Liaison Committee, and give every Bill that comes before the House 12 weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny? That way, the House will be able to do exactly what it should do: make sure we get better laws from this place.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support, albeit a little qualified, in his opening sentence. He has raised this issue with me before, and I say to him that the Government are grateful to his Select Committee for the work it has been able to do on those two Bills, which were published on 22 July, and whose Committee stage will be taken in, I think, October. I hope that will give the Select Committee some headroom in which to conduct an examination, which I know the House will find worth while. I hope he also understands that in the first Session of a new Parliament it is not possible to publish as many Bills in draft as it is in the later years of a Parliament.

Don Foster: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what will be the implications for private Members' Bills?

George Young: My hon. Friend asks a good question. Clearly the announcement I have made will have consequences, and we will need to discuss with the House the allocation of Back-Bench days for the Backbench Business Committee and the allocation of days for private Member's Bills.

Nigel Dodds: While the Government have been innovative in introducing so much constitutional change at breakneck speed, most of it not in the manifesto of either party in government, will the Leader of the House care to be more innovative on the idea of consensus building and seeking consultation with other parties more widely, and on, for a change, seeking to involve other parties represented in the House before decisions are made or proposals brought forward that involve major changes to the parliamentary system and our constitution?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. My view is that if a Government have a serious policy proposal, they should share it with the House. That is what I have done by publishing a written ministerial statement. I have also made it clear that it is subject to the passage of legislation. That legislation will be subject to scrutiny by the House, when the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points in Committee.

Peter Bottomley: Is it not clear that if the previous Government or an Opposition party had put forward a proposal to have four-or possibly even five under this new system-Queen's Speeches in a Parliament they would have been able to knock away any criticisms on the grounds that it would help Parliament to give consideration to the business in front of us, especially in its first year, when some progressive and even radical Bills need serious scrutiny both here and in the other place?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) did not welcome the extra time that would now be available to scrutinise the legislation in the current Queen's Speech.

Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House agree that dividing Parliament into five segments is an anachronism, irrational and in fact wastes a huge amount of money? It also acts as an obstruction to good government. It costs millions to cover the time of the police and military when we open Parliament each year. Although the Government are probably doing the right deed for the wrong reason, does he not appreciate that this will be a great help for the next Labour Government when it is elected in 2015?

George Young: I am not sure that I followed the hon. Gentleman's logic. As I understand it, he wants no Queen's Speeches at all, whereas those on his Front Bench want one more than is currently proposed. How they square the circle, I am not quite sure.

Peter Bone: May I congratulate the Leader of the House, first, on making this written statement to the House of Commons and not leaking it in advance? That is a great benefit for the House.
	On the subject of private Members' Bills, 13 days are allocated and Standing Orders imply that that should be for each year. We must address that now. We already have an extended Session without an extension in the number of days and if we are going to go through an extra extension, we really must have more days.

George Young: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are consequentials, as I have just indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster). It would be logical to increase the number of days allocated to private Members' Bills.

Chris Bryant: I shall let the Leader of the House into a secret: when we were in government, we did not introduce perfect legislation all the time. Just about the only thing that managed to make us drop particular bits of Bills or individual clauses or bring in and support amendments was the fact that we might lose the whole Bill because the end of the Session was coming along. In all honesty, I think that although it might be absolutely right to have proper annual Sessions when we go over to a fixed-term Parliament, having one two-year Session is a problem and he ought to reconsider.

George Young: I am grateful for the admission at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the last Government did not get everything right. One mistake we are determined not to make is that of giving inadequate time to the House of Commons to debate serious Bills. We are proposing more days in the current Session in order to give longer time for the consideration of the Bills that we have introduced. He also totally overlooked the provision, which all Governments have if they find that they are reaching the problems that he has just outlined, of carrying over Bills.

Gordon Birtwistle: Is not this change just a logical consequence of the move to a fixed-term Parliament beginning and ending in spring?

George Young: Yes.

Point of Order

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise the question of the written ministerial statement laid at 11.35 am today by the Minister for Europe regarding the proposed Bill requiring any proposed future treaties and amendments to be referred to a referendum. The problem is simply that the statement has not been accompanied by any pre-legislative scrutiny as regards a Bill with which we are going to be provided and it dodges the issue of the transfer of powers under the Lisbon treaty as well as the majority of voting arrangements and co-decision. May I invite you to consider allowing the House to hear an oral statement from the Minister so that we are in a position to ask him questions about this extremely important constitutional proposal?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is a seasoned campaigner in the House and first entered Parliament 26 years ago, so he will know very well that the decision on whether a statement should be written or oral is not a matter for the Chair but a matter for the Government. However, the hon. Gentleman's words will have been heard very clearly by those on the Treasury Bench. In addition, the hon. Gentleman's new position as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I congratulate him, will afford him an unrivalled opportunity further to explore these important matters.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

[Relevant document: The Second Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436.]
	 Second  Reading

Nicholas Clegg: I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister and I invite him to introduce the measure and address the House.

Nicholas Clegg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I should like to thank the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for its report on the Bill. The Committee has raised a number of important issues in its report that I shall seek to address one by one in my comments today.
	The Bill has a single, clear purpose: to introduce fixed-term Parliaments to the United Kingdom to remove the right of a Prime Minister to seek the Dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain. This simple constitutional innovation will none the less have a profound effect because for the first time in our history the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of Governments. There will be no more feverish speculation over the date of the next election, distracting politicians from getting on with running the country. Instead everyone will know how long a Parliament can be expected to last, bringing much greater stability to our political system. Crucially, if, for some reason, there is a need for Parliament to dissolve early, that will be up to the House of Commons to decide. Everyone knows the damage that is done when a Prime Minister dithers and hesitates over the election date, keeping the country guessing. We were subjected to that pantomime in 2007. All that happens is that the political parties end up in perpetual campaign mode, making it very difficult for Parliament to function effectively. The only way to stop that ever happening again is by the reforms contained in the Bill.
	As we hammer out the detail of these reforms, I hope that we are all able to keep sight of the considerable consensus that already exists on the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments. They were in my party's manifesto, they have been in Labour party manifestos since 1992, and although this was not an explicit Conservative election pledge, the Conservative manifesto did include a commitment to making the use of the royal prerogative subject to greater democratic control, ensuring that Parliament is properly involved in all big, national decisions-and there are few as big as the lifetime of Parliament and the frequency of general elections.

Christopher Chope: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the general election campaign the present Prime Minister said he thought it was desirable that were there to be a change of Prime Minister during the course of a Parliament there should be a general election within six months? Where has that proposal gone to?

Nicholas Clegg: I do of course recollect what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the general election campaign. What he said has been improved upon and superseded by this Bill.  [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh, but it has been improved upon because it gives the House the right to decide whether it wants to dissolve Parliament for any reason that it wishes. If the House decides that it does not want to continue to express confidence in a Government when a Prime Minister has changed, the Bill will give it the right to dissolve Parliament and trigger a general election.

David Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: Let me make a little more progress.
	Although I understand that some hon. Members have expressed unease at the speed with which we are advancing, let us remember that we are not starting from square one. People have been debating the length of Parliaments since the 17th century and all the parties now agree on the principle of fixed terms.

William Cash: In advancing his rather remarkable theory about improving the powers of Parliament, can the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance-indeed a guarantee-that in order to ensure that Parliament as a whole could properly make a decision on any such motion, there would be a guaranteed free vote on it?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert in expressing his views regardless of what the Whips say. Whipping is of course a matter for the parties. I question his suggestion that there is something unorthodox or unwelcome about giving the House more power. We have a Prime Minister who is the first in history to relinquish the right to set the date of the general election. Surely the hon. Gentleman, who has always fought so valiantly for the rights of the House, welcomes that shift of power from the Executive to the legislature.

Peter Tapsell: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement that the Prime Minister has made on a number of occasions-that he is giving away a power that no previous Prime Minister has chosen to do. Why do the right hon. Gentleman and our Prime Minister think that they are wiser than their 40 predecessors?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said, the virtues of a fixed-term- [ Interruption. ] It is not a question of wisdom; it is a question of the weight of history. We have been talking about this for decades, the Labour party campaigned on it, as did other parties, and at a time when we are trying to restore people's confidence in politics after the expenses scandals, one of the essential ingredients is to strengthen the rights of the House at the cost of the excessive powers of the Executive.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nicholas Clegg: I want to make a little headway on the detail of the Bill.
	The Bill makes provision for the next parliamentary general election to be held on 7 May 2015.

Pete Wishart: Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of anything else happening in May 2015? National elections perhaps? Did he consider them and reject them? Why is he holding an election on the same day as the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Nicholas Clegg: If the hon. Gentleman can be patient, I will turn to that issue as it is a legitimate one. We had a debate last week about the coincidence of the date of the referendum being the same as that of the elections for the devolved Assemblies, but, as I shall acknowledge later, if he can hold on, I recognise that concerns about the coincidence of two parliamentary elections are qualitatively different and need to be examined further.
	Each subsequent parliamentary general election after 7 May 2015 will be expected to occur on the first Thursday in May every five years, dovetailing with new arrangements that will see parliamentary Sessions run from spring to spring from 2012, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Jack Straw: On parliamentary Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman heard his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that there would be opportunities during debates on this Bill to debate his announced decision this morning in respect of abolishing one Queen's Speech and having a two-year Session, until May 2012. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how those debates on the proposals made by the Leader of the House will arise during the Bill, because there is absolutely nothing in it that relates to them? To facilitate such provision, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure, if necessary, that the Government move new clauses providing for the dates of Prorogation and the Queen's Speech so that we can have those debates?

Nicholas Clegg: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a legislative matter so such provisions would not be necessary. As I am sure he will acknowledge, these matters are linked. If we adopt this legislation on fixed-term Parliaments, which I understand he supports-unless he has changed his mind-it will have a knock-on effect: we need to align the Sessions of this Parliament to the new fixed-term provisions. Instead of hyperventilating about the abolition of a Queen's Speech, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that all we are doing is introducing a one-off, transitional arrangement so that those two facts are aligned.

Jack Straw: Of course I understand why it is being done, but there is a lot of objection, and not just from the Opposition, to having a Session lasting two years. That has not happened for the last 150 years and it has implications for the power of the House. As the  Official Report will show, the Leader of the House told the House just a few minutes ago that there would be opportunities to debate his proposal under this Bill. Could we know how that will arise?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman is already doing it, so I am sure that there will be more opportunities for him and his colleagues to do so in Committee. I would like to point out a fact to him. The extension of this Session will last in practice for five months. It is a one-off, transitional arrangement to make sure that we have reliable annual Sessions from spring to spring, in keeping with the fixed-term Parliament provisions that we have introduced in the Bill.

John Hemming: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the comments by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who said that the whole issue of whether we should have a Queen's Speech every year or every two years-and in fact, whether we should divide Parliaments into segments-should be considered? The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has argued that we should not put that in the Bill, because it needs to be considered by the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.

Nicholas Clegg: It is not in the Bill, but it is a consequence of it. If we have fixed-term Parliaments, we need to revisit the way in which Sessions are organised.
	We must retain flexibility on an exceptional basis, allowing us to deal with unexpected crises or conditions that make it necessary to move the election-for example, a repeat of the foot and mouth crisis, which led to the postponement of elections in 2001. In such circumstances, the Prime Minister will, by affirmative order, be able to vary the date of Westminster elections by up to two months, either before or after the scheduled date. Such a move will require the consent of both Houses, thereby preventing this power from being abused in a partisan manner.

Bernard Jenkin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that these proposals, whatever the merits of fixed-term Parliaments-personally, I do not support those proposals-smack of gerrymandering the constitution in favour of a particular coalition? That is definitely a bad thing. It is a subjective judgment to suggest that this is giving power to Parliament, as it can be argued that it is taking it away from it. Does this not smack of constitution making on the hoof? What we need is a proper constitutional convention to consider such a major change to our constitution.

Nicholas Clegg: I do not agree that this is an innovation made on the hoof, as it has been discussed for decades. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not recognise that taking a power away from the Executive after years in which they have been too dominant in relation to the legislature is a step in the right direction, providing more powers to Parliament that do not exist at present. It is also fully in keeping with democratic practice in many other democracies.

Anne McGuire: I am astonished by the Deputy Prime Minister's comment that he would build flexibility into the legislation so that if something such as foot and mouth occurs, changes can be made. Is that not giving back to the Prime Minister the prerogative to call an election, although the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to take that prerogative away from him? Surely it was a political decision not to hold the election in May 2001, not a constitutional one.

Nicholas Clegg: With respect, the right hon. Lady is reading too much into something that is a perfectly practical, common-sense solution to what happens if, in exceptional circumstances, as we saw in 2001, the election simply cannot be held on a proposed date.

Anne McGuire: indicated  dissent .

Nicholas Clegg: Well, the right hon. Lady shakes her head, but she would not have liked elections to be held in the middle of the foot and mouth crisis. We need to respond to such things. The decision would be made by affirmative order, so the House of Lords, too, would have a say, preventing the politicisation of that decision.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nicholas Clegg: I should like to make progress before giving way again.
	Some hon. Members have asked, quite reasonably, why Parliaments will run for five years, not four. That is one of the issues that has been raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report. Let me explain: five years is the current maximum length for which our legislation provides. Five years is the length of Parliaments in France, Italy, and South Africa, among others, and it is the maximum length of Parliament in India. In the United Kingdom, three of the past five Parliaments have run for five years. Leaving aside the very short Parliaments, half of all Parliaments since the war have run for more than four years, so five years is both in keeping with our current arrangements, and has international precedent.

Chris Bryant: But if the right hon. Gentleman is to give us all the statistics, he must add that since 1832 the average peacetime length of a Parliament has been three years and eight months-nowhere near five years, which has been pretty exceptional across that time. On the international comparisons, none of the other countries that he mentioned has the same structure with the Executive coming out of Parliament, so ours is a very different system. I urge him to look again at four years.

Nicholas Clegg: I am not entirely sure whether that last assertion is correct. The hon. Gentleman wants to give the House a history lesson, so perhaps I may refer him to the Parliament Act 1911, which introduced the current five-year maximum. The then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, told the House that five years would
	"probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years"-[ Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1749.]
	That is a quote that I picked up from the Committee's report, rightly pointing out that when a Parliament is expected to last for only four years, as is now the case, it very often ends up, in effect, a three-year Parliament. So our view is that by fixing the cycle at five years, we help to mitigate- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that that is a ridiculous decision. He knows as well as anybody else that for 12 or 18 months before an election is held, work in the House is blighted by all the parties politicking in advance of polling day. Therefore, if we want Governments to govern for the long term, we think five years is the right period of time.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nicholas Clegg: I should like to make some headway on the next issue-

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Second Reading speech by Herbert Asquith in February 1911. I am very grateful to the House of Commons Library for drawing this to our attention. I have the full speech. The right hon. Gentleman cannot use that quotation to justify something that was never the sense that Asquith was putting across. What Asquith was suggesting was that Parliaments within the five-year bracket would normally last from beginning to end for four years. That was the Liberal party policy as late as 2007. Why is it not now?

Nicholas Clegg: I will not compete with Herbert Asquith as well as with the right hon. Gentleman. The wording, as I said, makes it clear that he was pointing out something that we all know: that politics becomes consumed by electioneering in the run-up to a general election, and that therefore, if we have a five-year fixed term, as we are advocating in the Bill, in reality the Government of the day have at least four years to govern for the benefit of the country.

David Hamilton: I will go back not 100 years, but 10 years. Have the Government considered the other three nations of this country, which have decided on a four-year period? Surely four years fits, so that there will not be a conflict in the future. The current term should be either four years, or six years, moving back to a four-year cycle, otherwise there will be a conflict that is insurmountable.

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, I recognise that there is an issue there, as the hon. Gentleman says. That coincidence of UK elections to the House and devolved elections will occur every 20 years. If he will allow me, I will return to the issue in greater detail in a while.
	The date of the next election specifically-

George Howarth: rose-

Nicholas Clegg: I should like to make some headway. The date of the next election, Thursday 7 May 2015, has also raised some questions, as Holyrood, the Welsh Assembly and Stormont will all be holding their own elections on the same day. The issue of combining polls came up last week when we were debating the decision to hold a referendum on 5 May next year, as that referendum will coincide with elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
	Let me be clear. We believe that holding a referendum on the same day as a parliamentary or Assembly election is entirely justifiable. It allows us to avoid asking people to traipse back and forth to the ballot box, it is an uncomplicated event in which people are simply being asked to say yes or no to the referendum question, so it avoids any confusion or overlap with the elections to the devolved Assemblies, and of course it will save money. However, as I said, I accept that holding elections to different Parliaments or Assemblies on the same day is altogether more complex-

Bernard Jenkin: Why?

Nicholas Clegg: I shall explain. It is not a simple yes or no choice to a referendum question, but raises a host of questions about how people are governed at the UK-wide and devolved level by different parties and different politicians. With elections to the devolved legislatures every four years and to Westminster every five years, such a situation would occur every two decades. With the next occurrence in five years, we have time to plan for it, but we need to give the issue proper further thought. There is already scope in legislation to vary the dates of elections to devolved legislatures, and the Government are now actively considering whether those powers are sufficient. We have not yet reached a conclusion-we will be very interested to hear the views of others-but if we decide that further powers are needed, we will put forward proposals for an alternative.

Iain Stewart: With the Prime Minister having the power, subject to resolutions of both Houses, to vary the date of the general election, would a condition for varying that date be the date of a devolved Assembly election, and would it be for Westminster or the devolved Assembly to make the variation?

Nicholas Clegg: As I explained earlier, the purpose of that exceptional power is to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, so that is not the intention. What I have just tried to explain is that there will be an issue, once every 20 years, with the coincidence of elections to this House and to devolved Assemblies. The devolved Assemblies, as I said, have powers to adjust that date, and we are considering whether those powers are sufficient to deal with this.  [ Interruption. ] There is a lot of harrumphing from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I am trying to be very open and to acknowledge that there is an issue that people understandably feel strongly about in Cardiff, Edinburgh and elsewhere, and we want to work with him and others to find a solution.

Elfyn Llwyd: Surely it is not in the interests of this Government or anybody else to have two major elections within four weeks. That is the point, because there is a leeway of only four weeks within the devolved Administrations.

Nicholas Clegg: That is exactly what we need to look at, and it is exactly why we need to consider whether the existing provisions are sufficient. The hon. Gentleman implies that they are not.

Maria Eagle: rose-

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to make progress. I have given way plenty.

Maria Eagle: rose-

Nicholas Clegg: Okay.

Maria Eagle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. Is he saying that the problem occurred to the Government after the Bill was drafted? If it had occurred before the Bill had been drafted, surely some provision should already be in the Bill, but he will have to bring forward some new provision.

Nicholas Clegg: As I was seeking to explain, our approach is first to acknowledge that there is a legitimate issue- [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Lady could just listen to me, she may find satisfaction in the explanation. We believe that the answer to that does not necessarily lie in this Bill, but in the powers enjoyed by the devolved Assemblies in Holyrood and in Cardiff. That seems to us to be the right way to proceed.
	I note today that the Electoral Commission has highlighted that an extension to the electoral timetable would support participation by overseas and service voters, and support the effective administration of elections. The Government are considering this issue and I have already indicated to the commission that we think there is a great deal of merit in exploring the potential for a change to the timetable. As the commission said in its statement today, the matter requires a thorough review to ensure that any change is coherent with the arrangements for elections across the piece. We will set out our proposals and the timetable once that review is complete.
	I want now to focus on the issue of early Dissolution. The Government of course recognise the possibility of exceptional circumstances that would make it appropriate for Parliament to dissolve before completing its full term. Currently, the House of Commons may vote-by a simple majority-to say that it has lost confidence in the Government, and there is a wide expectation that this will result in Dissolution. That is an important convention, which will be not just unaffected by the Bill but strengthened, a point that I will come to in more detail shortly.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. If the measure is genuinely a transfer of power from the Executive to the legislature, can he explain the reason for clause 2(1)(c)?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman may be referring to the continuation of the existing powers to prorogue Parliament, which will remain in place, particularly after the House has been dissolved for exceptional reasons. In addition, the Bill provides for a new power for the House of Commons to dissolve Parliament early by means of a motion, passed by a majority of two thirds of the total number of seats in this House, which states that an early general election should take place. This new power ensures that Parliament will be able to dissolve itself in any eventuality, regardless of whether the reasons relate to the merits or failings of the Government of the day.
	As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, these votes have already been the subject of considerable discussion. I shall therefore take a little time to explain to the House exactly how they will work. First, on the new power of early Dissolution, the defining principle of this Bill is that no Government should be able to dissolve Parliament for their own political advantage. So as I said, in order to secure a Dissolution motion, a vote will need to be passed by a majority of two thirds of MPs- the same threshold that is required in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Hon. Members will remember that originally the coalition proposed a threshold of 55%. That was not found to be satisfactory by many Members of this House, who feared that it would not provide a sure enough guarantee against a Government with a large majority triggering an election for partisan gain. We listened to those arguments and we agreed that the bar should be raised. At two thirds, we have settled on a majority that no post-war Government would have been able to achieve. It will be possible only if agreement is secured across party lines, thereby preventing any one party or the Executive from abusing this mechanism.
	On powers of no confidence, no-confidence votes have until now been a matter of convention.

Peter Tapsell: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to his next point, can he explain why, when he is putting forward a Bill of the most enormous constitutional importance, almost revolutionary in concept, there is not a single Conservative Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench to support him?

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure that they have other things which they need to attend to.
	As I said, no-confidence votes have until now been a matter of convention. Although it has been widely accepted that a no-confidence vote would require a Prime Minister either to resign or to call an early election, there has been nothing to date to enforce this. So for the first time, the Bill gives legal effect to a motion of no confidence passed by this House. Such motions will continue to require only a simple majority.

Robert Buckland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that the courts do not end up determining issues arising from Dissolution, and is he satisfied that the Bill as drafted ensures that that awful nightmare never happens?

Nicholas Clegg: I am absolutely confident of that. I will shortly explain why in further detail, because that possibility was raised in a memorandum by the Clerk of the House to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.
	Such motions of no confidence will continue to require only a simple majority. Following the passing of a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days during which a Government may seek to gain the confidence of the House. If, during the 14-day period, a Government emerge who can command the confidence of the House, then they will be free to govern for the remainder of the five-year term. We believe that a period of 14 days strikes the right balance, allowing enough time for an alternative Government to be formed while ensuring that there is not a prolonged period without an effective Government.

Laurence Robertson: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was partly about restoring the public's confidence in Parliament, but is it not correct that we could witness a change of Government without there being a general election, which surely will not satisfy the public?

Nicholas Clegg: The point of this change is that if the House no longer has confidence in the Government of the day it can pass a vote of no confidence under existing provisions, but legally enforced, and that any new Government who then try to reconstitute themselves would have to enjoy the confidence of this House-and therefore also, by extension, the confidence of the people we all represent in our constituencies, until the end date of the fixed-term Parliament comes around.

Peter Bone: At the moment, the situation is that if there is a vote of no confidence, the Queen will decide whether Parliament is dissolved, and she then has the right to look for an alternative Government. Why do we need to mess around with the constitution, changing something that seems to work very well?

Nicholas Clegg: We are seeking to strengthen and reinforce the powers of this House. The motion of no confidence will be passed by this House, and it will be up to this House to decide whether any subsequent Government constituted within a very short period of time-within two weeks-deserve to continue to be supported by this House. If Members of the House do not wish to provide that support to that Government, the House can say no. That seems to me to be strengthening the powers of the House.

Richard Shepherd: I am obliged to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will not all we have in those 14 days just be an auction of offices and promises and the usual making of a Government?  [Interruption.] No, I did not mean it in that sense.
	In Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", a succession of Caesars were bought and sold by the praetorian guard. Is that what this constitutional reform programme amounts to?

Nicholas Clegg: I really think that my hon. Friend is reading too much into the provision. The existing arrangements on votes of no confidence are fairly similar to what we are proposing. First, the vote will be precisely as it is now-50% plus one. Secondly, a new Government can be asked to be formed after that vote of no confidence.

Richard Shepherd: But we have an election.

Nicholas Clegg: No, not necessarily; that is not an automatic consequence of the existing provisions. We are giving the House a new power, passed by two thirds, that would force an early election and the Dissolution of the House.

Mark Durkan: rose-

Anne McGuire: rose-

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to make some progress.
	In the event of an early Dissolution, under whatever circumstances, the decision will be confirmed by the issuing of a Speaker's certificate, meaning that there will be no ambiguity about whether the House had voted for a Dissolution with the requisite majority or whether a vote of no confidence in the Government should trigger a Dissolution. It will also mean that procedures of the House will determine whether the triggers are satisfied, rather than that being in the hands of either the Executive or the courts.
	As I said earlier, I know that the Clerk of the House of Commons has expressed concerns about these arrangements in a memorandum to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The memorandum suggests that the courts may be able to intervene in parliamentary business. The suggestion is that we would therefore be better off implementing the changes through Standing Orders rather than primary legislation. I would like to reassure the House that the Government have looked into the issue in considerable detail. We are satisfied that the provisions in the Bill will not allow the courts to question the House's internal affairs.
	The Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has placed in the Libraries of the House a paper setting out our views. Briefly, we are satisfied that the courts will continue to regard matters certified by the Speaker as relating to proceedings in Parliament and therefore falling under the protection of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. The memorandum refers to the legal challenge in 2005 to the Hunting Act 2004 as authority that courts will interfere in parliamentary proceedings. However, that case was concerned with the validity of the Parliament Act, not the internal proceedings of Parliament.

Bernard Jenkin: rose-

William Cash: rose-

Nicholas Clegg: I shall finish what I am saying about this detailed and involved point.
	During that case, the House of Lords reiterated that courts cannot interfere in those proceedings, so far from leading us to believe that courts may intervene under the provisions of the Bill-

Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, as "Erskine May" makes very clear, when a Minister seeks to quote in detail from a document, it must be laid on the Table of the House?

Nigel Evans: I understand that "Erskine May" states that, but how much detail has just been given is open to debate. I call Mr Clegg.

Nicholas Clegg: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have merely referred in passing to a court case, which, as I said, confirms that courts will not involve themselves in internal parliamentary proceedings.
	The Bill explicitly confirms that the Speaker's certificate
	"is conclusive for all purposes."
	So the decision is for the Speaker, not the courts or the Executive.

William Cash: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

Nicholas Clegg: Not yet, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman might want to raise the point that I am about to mention.
	It is also a power that falls totally outside the remit of the European courts. On that note, I give way.

William Cash: It was not that point at all. I assure the Deputy Prime Minister that I am very much more concerned about our domestic arrangements in this House in this respect.
	The Clerk of the House, a very distinguished expert and our pre-eminent expert in the House on matters of procedure, was quite clear in his evidence. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it, to say the least, a little curious-even bizarre-that he should be using this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Clerk of the House of Commons about a matter of vital constitutional importance, without our having had the opportunity to see the counter-evidence? In addition, does doing that in this way not undermine the integrity and standing of the Clerk of the House?

Nicholas Clegg: First, it is worth acknowledging, as the Chair of the Committee would do, that many other distinguished experts and academics in this field explicitly demurred from the analysis provided by the Clerk when the evidence was provided to the Committee recently. Secondly, the Clerk's memorandum was provided to the Committee and it is therefore available to everyone in the House to examine for themselves. Thirdly, we have today placed in the Library of the House a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, that sets out in detail our reasoned views. I do not think that this is a question of scientific doctrine. It is a matter of some significant judgment, and our judgment, based on important precedent, is that there is nothing in the Bill that will invite the courts to intervene in the internal proceedings of the House.

William Cash: This is a very important constitutional question. The Deputy Prime Minister has just implied that there could well be a dispute. The letter-which I have not yet had an opportunity to see-itself disputes the view of the Clerk of the House. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not concede that this matter could well be referred to the courts, even if he and his Government take the view that it could not, and that their view does not preclude the courts from intervening in certain circumstances? This is his view, and the view of the letter writer, but it is not necessarily the view of the courts.

Nicholas Clegg: As I have said, it is not only our view in the Government; it is also the view of a number of very distinguished constitutional experts who gave evidence to the Committee on this very point just a short while ago. As I was seeking to point out, we have looked at the court case on the Hunting Act 2005 specifically cited in the memorandum from the Clerk, and found that it arrives at exactly the opposite conclusion.

Graham Allen: rose -

Nicholas Clegg: Perhaps the Chairman can help us on this point.

Graham Allen: In the very limited time that we had to look at this matter, the Clerk was the only person to raise this question, and the academics who have been referred to-Professor Hazell, Professor Blackburn and others-completely disagreed with the view put forward by the Clerk. This is simply a question of whether the power exists in statute law or in Standing Orders. I should like to quote from the Committee's report, in which we said:
	"It would be a pity if the Executive gave up the power to call an election at a time of its own choosing only for the legislature to hand it back by a simple suspension of Standing Orders to that same end."
	In other words, we all know that the Standing Orders of the House can be suspended at any moment on the whim of the Executive. It would be a shame, were the Executive finally to give up that power, for us simply to hand it back again.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful for that clarification. I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we agree with the Committee's conclusions on this point. Given the constitutional significance of the Bill, which has been underlined by many Members during the debate, it would be inappropriate for those significant constitutional provisions to be translated into Standing Orders. They need to find their way into primary legislation, and into law.
	In the event of an early Dissolution, and an early general election, the new Parliament will run until the first Thursday in May in the fifth year of its existence, unless, of course, it too is subject to early Dissolution. Questions have been asked about whether the new Parliament should run for the full time, or whether its life should be limited to whatever period its predecessor had left on the clock. Our view is that resetting that clock is a more sensible proposition. That is the arrangement that will be most natural to voters; people do not expect to elect a Parliament knowing that it will last only a short time. When they hand a Government a majority, they are giving them a mandate to govern for up to five years.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being assiduous, and the House appreciates that. I put it to him bluntly, however, that the Bill takes away from a simple majority in the House the right to cause a general election and puts into the hands of, perhaps, himself leading a minority party the ability to withdraw his support from one party and give it to another in order to form an Administration, without the risk of a general election. Is that really fair?

Nicholas Clegg: First, that is precisely the position now, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Secondly, he is viewing the Bill through a prism of-how can I put it?-suspicion, which really is not justified. It gives new powers to the House, and I hope that he will come to that view himself as it is examined on the Floor of the House, as it should be. The Bill is giving new powers to the House in addition to the powers of no confidence that do not already exist, which we are also strengthening in turn.

Edward Leigh: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if, God forbid, our friends and Liberals were to walk away from the coalition and if the Bill were passed, there is no doubt that our Prime Minister could call an immediate election? Is there any doubt about that?

Nicholas Clegg: The Bill speaks for itself. With respect, this is genuinely not about the internal dynamics of this coalition Government.  [Interruption.] I hear from the groans and the roars that that view is not widely shared. I hope that anyone who has listened to what I have said today will reasonably conclude that the Government are doing something that should be welcomed in this House-strengthening its powers, while weakening those of the Executive. We are surrendering the Prime Minister's right to set the date of the general election-a power that has been used and abused and has become the plaything of Prime Ministers of all parties for far too long.

Mark Durkan: Is the Deputy Prime Minister not being somewhat disingenuous in stressing that the Dissolution of Parliament is a spectacular new power to be given to this House, when just a few moments ago he stressed that the very high threshold for that power would make it virtually impossible to attain?

Nicholas Clegg: What I was trying to explain was that the existing powers to pass a motion of no confidence will not only remain exactly as they are, but be given legal force so that they will be strengthened. In addition, to cover any exceptional circumstances that might arise, we are giving the House new powers-I stress that this is a new power, which currently does not exist-to dissolve Parliament altogether and trigger a general election. The only institution whose power is being seriously curtailed by the Bill is that of the Prime Minister.
	This Bill is modest in size-it has just five clauses and one schedule. Clause 1 relates to polling days for parliamentary general elections, including the setting of the date of the next election on 7 May 2015, and sets out the five-year term. Clause 2 provides for the circumstances in which an early parliamentary general election can be held. Clause 3 makes the key necessary changes to electoral law and the law concerning the meeting of Parliament in the light of fixed days for elections. Clause 4 deals with certain supplementary and consequential matters-preserving the Queen's power to prorogue Parliament. Clause 5 sets out the short title of the Bill and provides that it will come into force on Royal Assent. The schedule contains consequential amendments to a number of Acts of Parliament. In contrast to the previous Government, who aggressively programmed their Bills, we propose not to curtail debate on each clause, but to allow two full days on the Floor of the House for Committee stage.

Paul Uppal: Is the Deputy Prime Minister mindful of unintended consequences? One aspect of fixed-term Parliaments and fixed terms in general elections is that costs are often associated. Campaigning often starts earlier-in North America, for example, where there are seats for the Senate, the House of Congress and presidential seats. General elections and primary elections start very early, so perhaps an unintended consequence of the Bill could be additional costs for campaigning, not to mention apathy among the general public.

Nicholas Clegg: I would argue that the real cost is incurred by all of us when we are constantly on tenterhooks about whether or not the Prime Minister of the day is going to call a general election. That is precisely what happened in 2007. At the last general election, we all promised the voters that we would seek to provide stable, good and strong government not constantly hijacked by the ducking and weaving of the Executive trying to second-guess what people are thinking and trying to choose a date in the political calendar to suit their own ends. That is what the Bill delivers, and it seems to me that, in one way or another, we all promised that to the voters at the last general election.
	Clearly, there are strong views across the House on the best way to implement fixed-term Parliaments, but everyone can surely now acknowledge that the Prime Minister has, through this Bill, become the first Prime Minister in British history to agree to relinquish his power to trigger elections.

Gavin Shuker: rose -

Nicholas Clegg: I want to finish now.
	That is a hugely important break with the past, and exemplifies the reformist spirit at the heart of our new politics. Let me finish by reminding hon. Members that although we might disagree on some of the detail of the Bill, we are united on the principle that underpins it. Fixed-term Parliaments constitute a major transfer of power away from the Executive and a major strengthening of Parliament's authority over its own lifetime. The Bill is a major step towards the more legitimate, stable political system that we have all promised to the British people.

Jack Straw: The Labour party manifesto contained a commitment to legislate for fixed-term Parliaments, as did that of the Liberal Democrats, as we have heard. The Conservative party manifesto included no such commitment whatever, and as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) reminded the House at the beginning of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech, the proposition from the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, was directly contradictory to that contained in the Bill. His proposition is that, were there a change of Prime Minister during a Parliament, that change should trigger a general election within six months of the new Prime Minister taking over. As a direct consequence of the Bill, that solemn commitment at the general election has been not just bypassed but wholly contradicted.
	I am quite sure that the process that led to the Bill, following the general election, was entirely one of cerebration and consideration of the balance of the intellectual arguments-

Bernard Jenkin: Of course.

Jack Straw: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments from a sedentary position, and he is often right about these matters. I am quite certain that the process had absolutely nothing whatever to do with horse trading about a deal.

Robert Flello: Of course not.

Jack Straw: Of course not. That kind of thing might go on in Stoke-on-Trent, but certainly not in Witney and the prosperous bit of Sheffield.
	Whatever the provenance, the Bill is proof that Conservative Members made a Pauline conversion on the issue-

Maria Eagle: Some of them.

Jack Straw: From a sedentary position, again, my hon. Friend prompts me to correct myself: Conservative Members in the Government have made a Pauline conversion, although it is palpable from today's debate that, unlike St Paul, they have taken few voluntary converts with them.
	If the Government and the House get the Bill right, it will be a positive innovation for our democracy. I do not share the Deputy Prime Minister's hyperbole, but I certainly share his belief that it is a step forward, not a step back. We intend to work constructively to deliver what would be a significant constitutional change. For that reason, we will not divide the House tonight. However, let us be clear from the outset: the Bill as currently drafted does not stand up to scrutiny, even the limited scrutiny that the Government have permitted the House to date. The Bill will need substantial revision if we are to be able to support it on Third Reading, as we had wished to do.
	The introduction of fixed-term Parliaments is intended to strengthen Parliament and fetter the Executive, and to make the political process more legitimate in the eyes of the public by reassuring them that the date of elections can no longer be at the whim of the Prime Minister. We have heard a lot about the power of the Prime Minister. Having known one or two Prime Ministers, I think that many Prime Ministers and potential Prime Ministers would rather not have the right and power to call a general election, as it has a brutal logic: if they win, they have made the most positive decision of their life; if they lose, they are out of office almost always, too.

Bernard Jenkin: Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has also reached a completely dispassionate judgment, and that his decision to allow the Bill a Second Reading is in no way coloured by the possibility that his party will end up in government without a general election if it is passed?

Jack Straw: Funnily enough, I had not thought of that. Perhaps I should have. It is not that I am innocent of such considerations, but on this occasion it had not occurred to me.
	The Bill does botch the job, however. It provides for a standard Parliament to be too long, at five years. It fails to clarify the procedures for confidence votes, opening up the possibility of a lame-duck Administration and constitutional limbo. It leaves a large loophole enabling Prime Ministers to use the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament, as happened recently in Canada. The mechanism for triggering an early Dissolution of Parliament may impinge-I put it no more strongly than that-on parliamentary privilege by creating the risk that courts could intervene on parliamentary proceedings.
	Much of the incoherence of the Bill is a consequence of the unnecessary haste with which it is being rushed through Parliament. A week ago, the House debated the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. That too is being rushed through, with the Deputy Prime Minister breaking all previous undertakings about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	If Members accept the imperative of a May 2011 date for the alternative-vote referendum-although I do not-at least the right hon. Gentleman has a fig leaf of an excuse for seeking to rush that Bill through at this early stage, but palpably no such excuse exists for rushing this Bill through. Had there been any justification, such as a packed legislative programme which might have hit the end-of-Session buffers, that excuse would have been blown away this morning by the ill thought through announcement by the Leader of the House that the current Session is to last for two full years.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, in all his newly proclaimed virginal innocence, for giving way. Does he not believe that this Bill and the other Bill to which he has referred are in some way linked?

Jack Straw: Let me say first, for the avoidance of doubt, that I have made no protestations of virginal innocence, and would never seek to do so.
	The two Bills are certainly not cognate, but they are linked in the sense that they are the price that the Conservative party agreed to pay in order to stitch together this very curious coalition. I am glad, in saying that, to receive the approbation of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. In any event, the idea that this Bill had to be bashed through very quickly was blown away by this morning's announcement.

Richard Shepherd: Given that the right hon. Gentleman is giving us a catalogue of what is wrong with the Bill and what is difficult about it, how can he vote in favour of the principle of the Bill as drafted and lying in front of the House of Commons, rather than voting against it as a matter of principle? It does not strike me as amenable to satisfactory changes in Committee, even if the good will of the Government were there for the purpose. Why is the right hon. Gentleman not standing by that principle, and demonstrating that this is an unsatisfactorily prepared Bill?

Jack Straw: It is an unsatisfactorily prepared Bill-on that the hon. Gentleman and I are in absolute agreement-but we may be in disagreement on the principle of the Bill. I have done many things from the Front Benches in 30 years to seek to justify difficult positions and have emerged upright at the other end, but with a commitment as clear as daylight in our manifesto-of blessed memory and only five months old-that said, in terms, that the Labour party will introduce legislation for fixed Parliaments, it would have been a bit tricky for me to have come to the House and opposed the Bill.  [ Interruption. ] The Deputy Leader of the House may say that that did not worry me a week ago. But it did.  [ Laughter . ]
	There is a serious point. Had the subject of this Bill been tied up with a proposition with which we wholly disagreed-as with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, where the Government could and should have separated the alternative vote and boundaries issues-that would have been different. As I explained to the House this time last week, I would have been delighted to have voted in favour of the Bill if all that it contained was part 1. The Deputy Prime Minister knows better than me why he has decided to put alongside that proposition-one that was broadly agreed-an entirely separate and unrelated proposition wholly to change the agreed and consensual way in which we have set boundaries in this country for many years, a manner last amended by this House not under Labour, but under the Conservatives.

Peter Tapsell: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman an historical example of how the Bill would have created great problems in the past? In 1950, the Labour party won the general election with-if my memory is correct-an overall parliamentary majority of seven. That entitled a Labour Government to stay in power for five years. They were never defeated on a motion of confidence in that Parliament, but by 1951, Mr Attlee, a great statesman, felt that his Cabinet colleagues were exhausted and that it was against the national interest for the Labour Government to struggle on with a majority of only seven. He decided to ask the King for a Dissolution. He would not have been able to do so under the provisions of the Bill.

Jack Straw: With great respect, I anticipate that he would have been able to do so. I am not seeking to justify in detail what is in the Bill, but let us take that as a possibility. That was an unusual circumstance; Attlee and his colleagues, the senior ones of whom had been in office for more than 11 years and all the way through the Churchill coalition Government, were completely exhausted. Some were dying; others had already passed away. Attlee was right to say that there should be a Dissolution. Under the terms of the Bill, he would have put that to the House. I cannot see that the Conservative party would have opposed it; it would have been astonishing if it had, since it thought that it was going to win. In that situation, the likelihood would be that the resolution of the House would have easily exceeded the two-thirds threshold. As a matter of historical record, that has to be the case.

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that we accept the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, but I do not want to lose his earlier comment that he would review that situation on Third Reading if some of this dog's dinner of a Bill were not tidied up between then and now. Will he reiterate the commitment that we will reconsider our position on Third Reading if we do not get some satisfactory changes?

Jack Straw: I am delighted to do that, and I put that absolutely on the record.

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend said a few moments ago that one reason why he felt inclined to give this Bill its Second Reading is a commitment made in the Labour party manifesto. Perhaps it would help if I reminded him of what we actually said in our manifesto. We said that we would have the following:
	"Legislation to ensure Parliaments sit for a fixed term and an All Party Commission to chart a course to a Written Constitution."
	At least two elements which would make the Bill conform with that commitment are missing.

Jack Straw: If I may say so, the "and" is disjunctive, not conjunctive-and I know that because I drafted that piece of the manifesto.
	I simply do not understand why-and we have heard no serious explanation as to why-the Government are bolting it. This morning, the Leader of the House gave us a further example when he announced a decision-not a proposal; it had been decided, and that was the word he used-that this Session should last for two years. He then tried to excuse that, having run into something of a squall in the House, by saying-we can check this against the record-that it was a "proposition" that could be further considered in this Bill. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will examine closely what the Leader of the House said about commitments for debate on that aspect of a consequence of this Bill.

Robert Flello: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not having an opportunity in Committee to discuss that matter should also be a potential trigger for voting against the Bill on Third Reading?

Jack Straw: Yes, I accept that. It will not be a pre-emptive decision for me to take, but one that will be taken in the usual way by the shadow Cabinet as a whole and the parliamentary party.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will make his own point about this next matter when he addresses the House. He chairs the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which is an all-party Committee with, I believe, a Conservative majority. It has been very clear about what he has described as:
	"The severe lack of time which the Committee has had to scrutinise this...Bill".
	He continued by saying that this
	"is not only frustrating but very disappointing."

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is scrabbling for excuses to oppose the Bill on the grounds that it is being rushed. Is there not a risk that if we did not rush it we might end up in the embarrassing situation of a supporter of fixed-term Parliaments who had been 13 years in government but never got round to introducing that?

Jack Straw: I have simply explained to the House, while the hon. Gentleman has been sitting there, that we are not opposing the Bill tonight and the reason is that we agree with the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. What I disagree with is the manner in which it has been introduced. I also disagree with some very important detail, part of which needs to be amended, not least to bring it into line with Liberal Democrat policy. I will explain that, because one of the consequences of their going into this coalition has been the complete amnesia that has affected the whole of the Liberal Democrats' policy.

Iain Stewart: rose-

Jack Straw: As it is to a Conservative, I shall give way.

Iain Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it is important to introduce this measure early so that we can give the country and the business community certainty that this Parliament will last five years? We will, thus, avoid the nonsense that we had in the summer and early autumn of 2007, when the whole country had no idea whether or not it was going to the polls.

Jack Straw: We need to do it in the next couple of years, but we do not need to do it now. If the Leader of the House were true to his word, he would at least have allowed for the 12 weeks' pre-legislative scrutiny that his Government promised would normally take place for Bills.

Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that were the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to have been given 12 weeks-I think that we have done an incredible job in two days, producing this report-many of the wrinkles that everyone concedes are in the Bill could have been smoked out? We could have heard from a lot of expert witnesses and we would have proposed ways in which a principle that appears to have the support of the whole House could have found consensus, as opposed to becoming a cause for bitterness and division.

Jack Straw: I accept that entirely. Constitutional legislation is always complicated and we should always seek consensus on it. I have to say-I believe Members know this-that I can think of plenty of occasions when I brought forward constitutional legislation and then had to take it away again. With the single, terrible exception of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill-for which I have already abjectly apologised as it was a dreadful piece of legislation-I have always both provided sufficient time and quite often changed proposed legislation addressing this complicated territory in the light of what was said in this House or the other place in Committee and the Chamber.
	To consider why we have ended up in this situation, we have to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) in an intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman echoed a comment made last week by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that people might have more respect for the Government if they admitted that it was about party advantage. There would have been greater respect for the Government over the timing and abject drafting of the Bill before us if the Deputy Prime Minister had said, "Yes, we brought this forward-and the Prime Minister has stood on his head on this-because we did a deal for a variety of reasons which I shall explain. That is the price the Prime Minister paid for this bit of the deal, and we are rushing it through for internal reasons." The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex was absolutely right to say-he can correct me if I get a single preposition in the wrong place-that the Bill smacks of gerrymandering the constitution in favour of the coalition, which is what I heard him say, and that it was legislation on the hoof. That is true. The Deputy Prime Minister should have taken his time and invited the other parties into discussion, sought the advice of the Liaison Committee and others, and come forward with a much better proposition.

Nicholas Boles: rose -

Mark Durkan: rose-

Jack Straw: If I may first make a little more progress, I will then give way to both hon. Gentlemen.
	Had the previous Labour Administration acted in such a fashion, the irony would not have been lost on the House. Members of the current Government parties would rightly have expressed outrage, and Liberal Democrat Members would have done so in unbearably sanctimonious and pious terms. Everybody knows that to be the case.
	Professor Robert Hazell of University College London's constitution unit has said:
	"The legislation could still be introduced with cross-party support, if the government is willing to take it slowly. That is what the government is seeking to do with reform of the House of Lords"-
	I commend the Government's approach on that-
	"It should adopt the same approach with this Bill."
	Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has now been introduced, my very strong advice to the Deputy Prime Minister is that he should take a long time before bringing it back before the House so that the Select Committee can have a look at it. If he wants examples of Bills just sitting around for some time while Ministers have repented at leisure of mistakes they and their colleagues have made and regrouped to bring back something better, I will provide him with them.
	As we know, the Bill's primary purpose is not high-minded; the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex was correct about that. Its effect may be welcome, but its primary purpose is to serve as a form of constitutional handcuffs to prevent either of the coalition parties from assassinating the other. This is, indeed, a partnership characterised by paranoia.

Nicholas Boles: The right hon. Gentleman criticises my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for not giving time for consultation, yet even before the Bill was published he had taken on board concerns expressed on both sides of the House about a specific provision relating to early Dissolution and radically changed his proposal. It seems to me that he is listening much more intently than the right hon. Gentleman ever did when he was proposing constitutional reforms.

Jack Straw: I was just checking with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) whether the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) was a Conservative or a Liberal Democrat, because I was very confused after this morning's pamphlet, but I gather from my hon. Friend that he is both. I am going to buy and distribute copies of his pamphlet in all Liberal wards-there are none in my constituency, but there are some in the borough. I shall dish out copies of the pamphlet in the borough, because one of my views about this coalition is that it made every bit of sense for the Conservative party and was total madness for the Liberal Democrats. With a little luck, the Liberal Democrats will go the same way as their predecessor party did in the early 1920s as a result of exactly the same process.
	The reason why the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had to change from the abjectly partisan proposal of 55% was that it was too obvious, since they had 56% of the votes. They must have thought that we were all stupid. He had to change that before he introduced the Bill because he would not have had a dog's chance of getting a Second Reading had that ridiculous and outrageous proposal remained. It was survival that led to the change, not high principle.

Mark Durkan: My right hon. Friend rightly touches on many of the concerns about the timing of the Bill, given the fairly scrappy nature of some of its proposals. Is the timing not really related to the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which we discussed last week, and the Bill that we are discussing this week were the Liberal Democrats' two glittering prizes in the coalition agreement, and they want to go to their party conference saying that they have already achieved the Second Reading of both those Bills? That is why we are being put through this today.

Jack Straw: I am quite sure. I was in favour of September sittings and my hon. Friend will recall that they had to be abandoned one year so that the screen in the Chamber could be put up. When I tabled a motion the following year as Leader of the House to reinstate September sittings I was roundly voted down by an all-party alliance, including many Conservative Members. Both parties in the coalition are probably now regretting this September sitting, because it has done them absolutely no good. Long may that continue.

Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: Of course, and then I need to come on to one or two reasons why I think that the Bill needs to be changed.

Edward Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to our Liberal friends. Does he share my understanding that, if there were a crisis and the Liberals had to walk out of the coalition, the Conservative Prime Minister would be prevented from calling an election if the Bill had become law? If the Liberals were then to offer to join a coalition with the right hon. Gentleman, would he embrace them tenderly?

Jack Straw: I am not going to get into too many hypotheticals, but it is a matter of public record that, speaking personally, I was not too keen on the embrace when it was offered on or about 8 May. The hon. Gentleman might wish to take some comfort from that for the future. Aside from anything else, he should do the arithmetic as to whether there could be some stability from such a coalition.
	As others want to speak, let me come to the crucial issue of whether the fixed term should be five years or four years. Most constitutional experts are agreed that four years is a more appropriate fixed term and would better reflect the constitutional position, historical practice and comparisons with other Parliaments. Professor Robert Blackburn has said:
	"In the UK, there can be little doubt that the period between general elections should be four years...It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as the maximum."

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will first allow me to make this point, I shall give way.
	The Library alerted me to what Asquith said in February 1911, and so I asked for the whole of the speech, which I have here. As the information from the Library and Blackburn both show, Asquith was talking about the idea that a Parliament would normally last for four years. There is not a word in Asquith's opening speech on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leader of the Liberal Democrats tried to tell us that there was. He should not busk on these points. Asquith said that the Act would lead to a normal length of four years and that was what he meant. Overall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, that has been the average length of a Parliament.

Lorely Burt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: May I finish this point, and then I shall of course give way? Indeed, the hon. Lady might wish to answer a question that I am about to pose to her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Alongside the position adopted by a former Liberal Prime Minister-last but one, it must be said, and look what happened to him and to his successor, although we need not detain the House on either of their fates-I want to refer to recent Liberal Democrat policy. I know that that apparently does not matter, but if the roles were reversed and if, just three years ago, the Labour party had said that there should be fixed Parliaments that should last four years, we would soon hear something about that from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We would hear suggestions that we were selling out and standing on our heads and that we did not know what we were talking about, and would be asked what was the point of making commitments-especially as simple a commitment as that-simply to tear them up. However, that was the Liberal Democrat position. They published a position paper-I am happy to take an intervention from the Deputy Prime Minister on this point-called "For the People, By the People", which said that the term should be four years and not five. Let me gild that lily: David Howarth, the excellent former Member for Cambridge, introduced a ten-minute Bill to the sounds of cheering from the Liberal Democrat Benches that set a term of four years and not five. He made very good arguments that were absolutely right.
	I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has at long last spotted that coinciding the date of a general election with that of national elections in Scotland and Wales is crazy and he is about to seek to go through hoops by which the people of Scotland and Wales and the political parties that are an essential part of the process-

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: I shall in a second. Those people and parties would be burdened with two successive elections with substantial and understandable arguments about which should come first and which should come second. That could directly affect the outcome.

William McCrea: rose -

Jack Straw: I shall give way in a second.
	The answer to all that is to go for four-year Parliaments. Among many others things, if we set a four-year Parliament this one would finish in 2014 and could never clash with the four-year cycle of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Jack Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I promised the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) that I would give way to her first. I shall then give way both to him and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea).

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Between the two sides this evening, we are having an interesting history lesson. Perhaps I might point him towards a more recent piece of history: the passage of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which covers the regulations for election campaign spending and also refers to five-year Parliaments. That Act was supported by many of our colleagues on the Opposition Benches.

Jack Straw: I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but I was responsible for that Bill, which emerged from cross-party negotiation. It was an agreed measure. As for the reference to five years, we were not setting the length of a Parliament in the Bill. We were accepting that as a fact and then determining how we dealt with party funding within that frame. There was no commitment whatever in principle in favour of five years rather than four.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and spot on in his views on five-year fixed-term Parliaments. I know that it is not my job as a Scottish National party Member to give the Labour party further reasons to vote against Second Reading, but will he guarantee to me that if there is no change in the date and if these elections are to clash, the Labour party will oppose the Bill?

Jack Straw: First, I cannot make that offer, not least because it is almost certain that it will not be me standing on the Front Bench, for reasons that the House knows. Although I keep saying that I will leave the Front Bench-and I have probably never been busier as a Front Bencher-it is my intention to do so. Secondly, it would be a matter for the shadow Cabinet and the parliamentary party even if I were to lead on this issue. As I have said to my other hon. Friends, we would weigh all these matters and come to a view.

William McCrea: I am sure that the people of Wales and Scotland will be very touched that they have been remembered by both the Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps when he is thinking about the elections he could remember Northern Ireland as well.

Jack Straw: Of course I do and I accept the admonition.

Alec Shelbrooke: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. I am a newly elected Member, and I have spent a great number of years as a prospective parliamentary candidate wondering when the election would be. All I hear from him now is excuses why we should have Parliaments of four years, although it suited his Government rather well to have Parliaments of five years. Is this just about trying to get an election as quickly as possible?

Jack Straw: I have long been in favour of fixed terms. I could dig out correspondence I had with Margaret Thatcher in 1983 about fixed terms. The Labour party committed itself to fixed terms in the 1992 election. What typically happens-this is why I welcome the measure and why I wanted that commitment in our manifesto-is that parties in opposition that are in favour of fixed terms go off the boil on them when they come into government. As someone who was a PPC on a number of occasions before coming an MP, I know that the speculation is difficult. It is important to have some certainty and that is why we are not opposing the Bill on Second Reading. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will use the time available to get things right, not least on whether terms should be for four years or five.

Eleanor Laing: Is the coincidence of elections in different parts of the country not just a problem of our having too many tiers of government? Would not it be better if we simplified the whole thing and did not have so many tiers of government? Then this problem would not arise.

Jack Straw: I do not think that the hon. Lady is proposing the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

Eleanor Laing: indicated  assent .

Jack Straw: Oh, she is-okay. I shall ensure that the Prime Minister is made aware of her views. Obviously, this is her job application for the position of Secretary of State for Scotland as she hails from there. I am certainly in favour of abolishing one tier of government where there is two-tier local government, which does not work. Thanks to a wise Conservative decision in 1995, Blackburn and Darwen have greatly benefited from being outwith the clutches of Lancashire county council and the two-tier system. However, that is not Conservative party policy and nor is it in the Bill.
	On Prorogation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) has pointed out, clause 4(1) expressly states:
	"This Act does not affect Her Majesty's power to prorogue Parliament."
	Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides might not particularly have considered this, but it is perfectly possible for a Prime Minister who faces the prospect of a defeat on a motion of no confidence and who does not want an early general election, which would otherwise arise on a simple majority, to seek a Prorogation of the House. That is not idle speculation, because that is exactly what happened in 2008 in Canada.
	In Canada, there are fixed terms, by law, of four years, but there are also procedures for early elections, as all fixed-term Parliaments have, if a Government lose confidence. The crisis in Canada arose because there had been an agreed all-party deal on substantially enhanced state funding for the political parties in return for draconian controls on donations and spending. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, in justifying all that against an austerity budget, decided to abandon the commitment and arbitrarily and unilaterally to reduce the amounts to be given to the other parties and his opponents. They cried foul and there was a crisis. When there was about to be a motion of no confidence against him, which almost certainly would have been won, he went to the Governor-General, in the seat of Her Majesty, and got a Prorogation so that Parliament would be suspended for quite a long time. The Prorogation was accepted and he subsequently sought, but was not successful, a further Prorogation. Given that the Bill is making significant changes, clause 4(1) has to be changed to ensure that the Bill does affect the right of Her Majesty to prorogue the House.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the ability to prorogue would also be useful to a Prime Minister who wanted an early general election? They could prorogue the House for a fortnight, preventing an alternative Government from being formed and leading straight to a general election.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People say that such things will never happen, but I am sure that Stephen Harper is an honourable man-as honourable as any British Prime Minister. When senior politicians are up against it and are fighting for their life, they will clutch at any lawful provision, and it would be lawful to do that, so this issue must be considered.

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend referred to my intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister as being about clause 2(1)(c), which I said in terms it was about, but the Deputy Prime Minister is so knowledgeable about this five-clause Bill that he confused it with clause 4(1), so my right hon. Friend is right about the answer but wrong about the question.

Jack Straw: I acknowledge the point that my right hon. Friend makes.
	I want now to deal with the privilege of the House, which was much aired in the evidence that the Clerk gave the other day to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. This issue has echoes of our debate 15 months ago about the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I recall that when I introduced the Bill there was a huge harrumph about the degree to which Parliament's privilege would be being affected by its provisions. There was such a huge harrumph that the Government were defeated on those provisions and had to go back to the drawing board, so I have thought about this matter.
	I would not dream of asking the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm this, but I dare say that the advice that he has received about the implications of this Bill are from similar sources to those from which I received advice on the 2009 Bill. I understand that the arguments are often finely balanced. I have certainly given similar undertakings to that given by him about the very long odds on the courts intervening, but this House and the other place are both highly sensitive to interventions by the courts on the privilege of the House. The hunting decision can be used in both ways: the actual decision of the courts, in respect of the Parliament Acts, was not to overturn a decision of this House, but the very fact that they entertained the argument was worrying. I ask him to think very carefully about that.

Geoffrey Cox: Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any other statute in respect of which the courts have declined at least to entertain an arguable interpretation?

Jack Straw: No, and that is the point. The courts will decline to entertain arguments, and actions, about what happens in the House, because they are banned from doing so; their job is to interpret legislation. The Government are inherently more vulnerable-I do not say that I share the view of the Clerk that they are very vulnerable-because they can get past the first base.

William Cash: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was very active on questions about the privileges of the House in relation to the Bill he just mentioned. Just now, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee implied that the views of the Clerk had effectively been overridden by the views of other experts. I have looked carefully at the evidence, and it is clear that the Clerk gave his view on 7 September whereas the main evidence, from all the other experts, was given on 21 August; in other words, the Clerk of the House of Commons-a distinguished expert and very knowledgeable about the House-gave his evidence in the light of the evidence that had already been given, save only for the oral evidence given by Professor Blackburn. The Committee did not ask Professor Blackburn specifically whether he repudiated the views of the Clerk of the House, so it seems to me-I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees-that the matter remains very open and that both the Clerk and Professor Blackburn agree that there should have been a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. In those circumstances, the evidence is overwhelming that the scrutiny should be properly done.

Jack Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it would have been difficult for me not to notice that he had taken an interest in privilege in relation to the Parliamentary Standards Bill, as he was scarcely ever not on his feet complaining about something or other that I was doing from the Treasury Bench. The Clerk was absolutely right to raise the issue and in the end we got through it. We were genuinely up against the clock with that measure, because the leaders of all three main parties had agreed both a timetable and broad outline contents.
	In this case, I am not coming down on one side or the other, but the issue is sufficiently worrying that we need to take our time.

Bernard Jenkin: rose-

Jack Straw: Many Members want to speak and as I have spoken at some length I want to conclude.
	Legislation for fixed-term Parliaments is a desirable objective and it could be achieved on a cross-party basis, but that requires the Government to go back to the drawing board and respond to the valid criticisms that have been made about the Bill. We want to play our part in helping them to do that and, as I said, we shall not oppose Second Reading, but we want considerable revisions, which requires more time and considerably greater opportunity for scrutiny. It also-if I may say so-requires the Deputy Prime Minister in particular to adopt a more measured, considered and consultative approach than has been evident to date. I fully accept that the House's not knowing about the note on privilege was an error and in no sense intentional, but I have to say that it is very aggravating and does not improve the environment in which the House receives such measures. I hope that we can see a different approach from Ministers. Although most Members support the principle, a huge amount of detail has to be got right before there is any chance of the legislation becoming law.

Daniel Poulter: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first formal contribution to the debates of the House. As many right hon. and hon. Members are aware, Sir Michael Lord, the previous Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and a long-standing Deputy Speaker, was gravely unwell during the summer, and I felt it inappropriate to make my maiden speech while he was so ill. Members will be pleased to know that he is now making a good recovery and I am sure they will join me in passing our best wishes to Sir Michael for his continued recovery and for his retirement.
	Sir Michael Lord was first elected for the then constituency of Central Suffolk in 1983. He was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. John MacGregor in Margaret Thatcher's Government and then, as many Members are aware, for 13 years, he served with great distinction, alongside Sir Alan Haselhurst, as a Deputy Speaker. In Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, Sir Michael will be remembered as a hard-working and diligent constituency MP.
	The constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich was created in 1997 from the then Central Suffolk constituency, taking in wards from what was then Suffolk Coastal and the northern wards of the Ipswich constituency. It is a constituency of great diversity. Central Suffolk boasts agriculture and a growing tourist trade. I am privileged to represent a very diverse population in North Ipswich, which includes the local Sikh temple and a Sikh community as well as a large Caribbean community.
	As there are more than 100 parishes in my constituency, I shall not talk about each in detail, but I will outline some of the main concerns that affect both my constituency and Suffolk as a whole. Members may be aware that before my election to the House I was a front-line NHS hospital doctor. That experience has stood me in good stead in representing my constituents, particularly the health care concerns that they face. In the NHS we have a key battle before us to ensure that we keep front-line services at Ipswich district general hospital. Under the regionalisation agenda of the previous Government, we saw the loss of vital cardiac and cancer care services at the hospital. It is important that we fight to restore Ipswich hospital to its former glory and make sure that once again we provide the vital services that the people of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich need.
	In a predominantly rural constituency, Hartismere is a vital community hospital that unfortunately was closed during the last three and a half years of the previous Government. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his team when he was shadow Secretary of State for working with me to help reopen the hospital, which provides essential services to the older people, families and pregnant women who live in our rural communities.
	It would be wrong of me not to draw attention to the fact that throughout Suffolk, thanks to the previous Government's out-of-hours contract, we were left with only two GPs to look after 650,000 people. That is something we shall look to the new health care White Paper to put right.
	Other challenges that face Central Suffolk and North Ipswich include the need to improve broadband services and access. Other Members may take access to broadband and high-speed broadband for granted-particularly if they represent more urban areas-but even if under current plans high-speed broadband is delivered to 90% of the UK, two-thirds of my constituents will still not have access to it. All Suffolk MPs will be working together to help deliver those services.
	Many of my fellow East Anglia MPs believe that more attention needs to be paid to infrastructure in our area, particularly roads and rail, which have been badly neglected over the last few years. Indeed, for many years Central Suffolk and North Ipswich received only 80% of the average national spend per head of population. That has taken its toll on a road and rail infrastructure that badly needs investment.
	My constituents, like many people throughout the country, will welcome the Bill. It will help us to give the country a clear legislative programme, with certainty about what the Government can do over a five-year period. There is so much to do in terms of welfare and educational reform and delivering a new White Paper on health care, and in particular dealing with the profligate economic record of the Labour Government. We must make sure that we have a clear five-year programme in which to do that. A fixed-term Parliament can only be a good thing.

George Howarth: May I tell the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that I have witnessed many maiden speeches, but his was up there among the best? I am sure that the House will hear much more from him in the coming years, and I look forward to his contributions. His maiden speech was certainly gracious and well constructed, and he made it with very little reference to notes. It was very good, and we all look forward to hearing more from him.
	Characteristically, the Deputy Prime Minister stayed for the opening speeches, then cleared off. He described the measure as modest in size. Well, at five clauses, it is indeed modest. He managed to demonstrate that, even though it is only five clauses long, he is not totally familiar with the content of his own Bill. In fact, it is not just modest in size but squalid in intent.
	Constitutional reform often has the effect of inducing an outbreak of navel gazing in the House, so I am usually reluctant to take part in these debates. That said, I genuinely believe both that the Bill is wrong in principle and that its details have not been properly tested or subjected to wider scrutiny. There was legislative scrutiny in the second report this Session by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee-I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will give his views to the House-but it can hardly be said that that report, although helpful, gave the proposals a ringing endorsement. Quite the opposite, in fact. In its conclusion on page 8, while not ruling out the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, the Committee expressed its position:
	"If the coalition wants five years in which to govern, it has the legal right to do so, for as long as it can command the confidence of the House. But we are not persuaded that current circumstances are a sensible basis on which to commit future governments to five-year terms."
	Hear, hear.
	It is not just the Select Committee that has expressed concern. Indirectly, in business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the House did so, when he said, in answer to a question from me:
	"However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that with a new Government, it is not possible, if one is to make progress, to put everything in draft, particularly when commitments have been made to do certain things by a certain time. Those political imperatives sometimes"-
	The House should note the words, "political imperatives"-
	"override the ambition that both he and I have to subject all Bills to draft scrutiny."-[ Official Report, 9 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 466.]
	There we have it. The reason why the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North was not given longer and why there was not a wider consultation is that the coalition Government have decided-it would appear, by the way, without a great deal of support from some parts of the Government-that they need to deliver the measure for political reasons.

Graham Allen: It is possible, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) suggested, to devise a means by which pre-legislative scrutiny could take place. Even with Second Reading being completed today, it would be possible to commit the Bill either to the Select Committee or to a Special Standing Committee, so that the 12 week-period that the Government regard as appropriate is fulfilled. I leave that in the air, in the forlorn hope that even at this point the Minister may take it as a suggestion.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a useful suggestion, and doubtless he will expand on it if he succeeds in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Issues of principle are involved, as well as of detail, and that is what I intend to try to deal with.
	Before dealing with the Bill's provisions, I want to say a word about the trust that was placed in our hands by our constituents at the general election. I hope that that does not sound too pious, but it is important that we discuss these principles when we deal with measures of this kind. Regardless of our party labels, we have been entrusted by our constituents with the ability to exercise judgment as representatives of our constituencies. That may appear trite, but it is important that we do not lose sight of it. Let me qualify the point, however, as I am not so naive as to assume that the 31,000 people who voted for me in Knowsley in the general election did so wholly or even mainly on the basis that I was the best person for the job.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend should not do himself a disservice. Would he give a wider audience to the fact that, as I recall, his 31,000 vote was either the largest or second-largest Labour share of the vote in England?

George Howarth: I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I am far too modest to consider looking at such statistics. Most of the people who voted, however, mainly voted for a particular political party. I am not trying to be unduly modest-that applies to every Member of the House, with very few exceptions.
	It is important to remember why people voted for particular parties. It is partly because they agreed with the policies, but partly because they agreed with the values. As the House of Commons Library has made clear in its helpful note, my party manifesto included a commitment to fixed-term Parliaments, as my right hon. Friend said, but that was in the context of a written constitution. I have already cited the wording that was used. My right hon. Friend said that the use of "and" to link fixed-term Parliaments with wider constitutional reform and a constitutional convention was a question of my muddling up subjunctive and conjunctive clauses, but I doubt very much whether he had that in mind when he drafted that section of our manifesto. Knowing him, it is possible that he deliberately left the wording ambiguous so that on a future occasion he could make the claim that he made today. Not for nothing did the late Barbara Castle suggest that he could occasionally be devious-I do not think that she actually used the word, "devious" but that was the import of what she said-and had a great deal of low cunning. Our earlier exchange perhaps demonstrated that even though he is not standing for the shadow Cabinet, he still has a great deal of low cunning.
	The manifesto commitment was ambiguous, but a further point needs to be made. How far does an Opposition party go towards deciding that it must stick to every measure in a previous manifesto when, as we did, it loses the election?
	I understand that Governments and parties that contribute towards Governments are rightly judged by the extent to which they do what they say will do at a general election and in their manifesto, but it seems to me-and I hope to my right hon. Friend-that although the principles that we stand by as a party and our values as a party endure defeat and victory in a general election, specific policies and certainly policies on such an issue do not necessarily survive a defeat.
	I was out and about in my constituency over the weekend and had many conversations about matters political, not just with Labour party members, but with voters. Surprise, surprise, not one of them said to me, "George, I want you to go down there on Monday for the Second Reading of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and vote for it." They did not say, "Vote for it." They did not say, "Don't vote for it." They have never discussed it with me at all. I have never had a letter on fixed-term Parliaments. I have never had an e-mail-no doubt I will get hundreds of them now-on fixed-term Parliaments. No constituent has ever discussed fixed-term Parliaments with me. Any belief that we have a moral obligation to support the Bill has passed me by.
	There are other important things that we should take into account. I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. We are sent here to exercise a judgment about many things, one of which is the performance of any Government at any given time. One of the devices that we have at our disposal in such circumstances is a vote of no confidence. Normally, a vote of no confidence can trigger an election process, subject to the monarch and all the procedures that have to take place in those circumstances. I do not believe that our constituents want us to be in a position where we retain the right to pass a vote of no confidence if the effect of that vote is dependent on the proportion of Members who voted for it.
	If a Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and that is manifested by a majority of one or two in a vote of no confidence, why is that wrong? Whether the Government have lost the confidence of two thirds of the House, a dozen or two or three Members, why does that make a difference? In the end, a Government who have run out of steam, run out of ideas or run out of confidence here or in the country should go.
	I was sent here to make sure that whatever the political composition of the Government of the day, I had the ability on behalf of my constituents to say, "Enough is enough. Go!" That ability, which I have had for the 20-odd years that I have been a Member of the House, is circumscribed by the terms of the Bill.

Alec Shelbrooke: There has been much talk about hypothetical situations that may occur if the Bill is passed. A vote of no confidence does not necessarily mean that there would be a general election. I am thinking back to the time when the House voted on the Iraq war. If the Government had lost that vote, and if the Prime Minister of the day had made it a matter of confidence in him and had lost, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that there would have been a general election, or would the then Government have changed the Executive and therefore, in effect, the Government?

George Howarth: It is always difficult to speculate about what would have happened at a given time if the vote had gone in a different direction. I know for a fact that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had taken the view-it is now a matter of record-that he would have had to stand down as Prime Minister. That would have changed the leadership of the Executive and the political leadership of the country. How that would have affected the imminence or otherwise of a general election is impossible to judge, because the arithmetic of Parliament would have stayed the same. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant that to be a helpful intervention for the Government, but I do not think it serves that purpose at all.

Richard Shepherd: It is inconceivable and against our traditions that a Prime Minister who proposes a war with the support of his Cabinet is defeated and does not depart the scene. There would have to be a general election. That is our tradition, that is the convention, and that was our constitution.

George Howarth: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right, and that he is right about what would have been the outcome in those circumstances, but I am not sure it would have been quite so direct. There may have had to be another vote before that became clear. We are speculating about a particular circumstance at a particular time.
	I have made the points that I want to make, but I have one more thing to say in conclusion. I do not believe that the people who voted for me sent me here to vote for a measure linked to other measures which, above all, is designed to entrench the position of the coalition Government. Because I was not sent here to do that, regardless of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) says from the Front Bench, and regardless of what was in our manifesto-I am not sure that many of my constituents are remotely aware that it was in our manifesto-there are no circumstances in which I could support the Second Reading of the Bill or even just sit on my hands. So if anybody else in the House is up for it, I shall be marching through the No Lobby to ensure that there is some opposition to the Bill tonight.

Geoffrey Cox: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this extremely important Bill. In the evidence that the Select Committee received, one of the distinguished experts who gave their opinion on the Bill described it as so fundamental that in other countries it would have required a constitutional amendment and possibly an entrenched majority of the House to pass.
	It is a symptom of the lack of seriousness with which constitutional questions are sometimes treated in the House that the Bill is being rushed through with undignified haste, as appears to be the case, and I regret it. In the last Parliament I spent five years criticising the previous Administration and sometimes being a little harsh on the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the way in which he introduced constitutional Bills, but although he sometimes ignored the substance of consultation, he always preserved its appearance, and he did so with the charm and urbanity that is characteristic of him. In this case, we have had neither the substance nor the appearance. Every single constitutional expert who has given their opinion on the Bill has deplored the absence of consultation in which the House and those in the wider community have had an opportunity to participate.
	I am troubled by the Bill. I do not understand why we should rush through the House so fundamental a constitutional alteration to arrangements that have stood us in reasonably good stead for generations. In this country our constitution has broadly served us well. We have had political stability for generations. It behoves the House to contemplate very carefully the wisdom of what it is doing, and to be sure that it is replacing the system that has served us well for so many generations with something better than what we had before. I do not believe that we have had the proper opportunity to consult widely and to consider carefully the Bill and the proposal that it puts forward.
	Why would it not be possible, if the measure is important to the existence of the coalition, to propose a Bill that applied to this Parliament only, and thereafter to consider the longer-term question? I apply the same principle to some of the other constitutional changes that are being introduced by the Government. To my way of thinking, it is really quite likely that our constitution needs fundamental amendment. I have spoken in the House on several occasions, referring to the fact that I believe that the time may have arrived when we need to consider wholesale the constitutional arrangements of this country. But if we do that, we should do so in a way that dignifies with respect the history of our constitution; that treats it with sufficient seriousness and depth; that produces a constitutional convention, for example, or brings together men and women of good will across all the parties to decide upon the constitutional arrangements that may last 100 or more years and determine the democratic shape of our nation's affairs. That is the way to introduce constitutional change, not in a piecemeal and fragmentary way, not incoherently, not because of immediate expediency, but because we have thought it through and because we know that what we seek to replace the former arrangements with will be better than what has gone before.
	One of the things that troubles me most about the provision is that it removes the pivotal involvement of the monarch in decisions about the formation of a Government. It is not a light thing, however graciously Her Majesty may have placed her prerogatives at the disposal of the House, to remove some of the fundamental and inherent prerogatives that Her Majesty retains. In 1910, when Asquith approached George V and asked whether the King would be willing to make 300 new peers in an attempt to steamroller through a fundamental change to the constitution, the sovereign answered Asquith, "No. I will not allow you to push through so fundamental a change to our constitution in such a way unless you consult the people in a general election." The right of the monarch to insist upon a Dissolution when some fundamentally antidemocratic change is proposed by a Prime Minister, is a fundamental safeguard in our constitution. It is something that the monarch, strong in the affections and respect of the British people, is uniquely able to do.
	As Conservatives, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, we should think long and hard before we remove the cornerstone of our constitution-the discretion and prerogative of the monarch to safeguard our democracy. What is constitutional in this country is the Queen in Parliament, the Crown in Parliament. The mere fact that the Crown in Parliament is often silent and invisible and inactive does not mean that it is not an important cornerstone in our constitutional arrangements. The right of the monarch, either to decline a Dissolution or to insist upon a Dissolution, seems to me a fundamental safeguard. I am not saying that there may not be a case for change. What I am saying, and what I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that it is not something for us as Conservatives simply to brush lightly aside, either for reasons of expediency or for reasons that are unnecessary. I say again: why would it not be possible to have a Bill that determines the length of this Parliament, if we needed such a Bill and if the good faith of the Prime Minister was not enough, and to consider the longer- term ramifications of the measure in a proper way?
	The ability of the Prime Minister to seek a Dissolution is not simply the unfair, unprincipled, unattractive proposition that the Deputy Prime Minister proposed to the House an hour or so ago. The ability of the Prime Minister to go to the Queen to ask for a Dissolution can sometimes be done in circumstances very much in the interests of the nation. I am not saying that it is not sometimes abused. Of course I accept that it can be abused. But in other circumstances it may be vital. The Prime Minister may believe, for example, that it is required in the public interest that he should propose to Parliament a measure that was not in the governing party's manifesto, but which, for reasons of principle, he believes he should put to the country. What does he do then? Let us suppose, for example, that a future Government proposed to join a united states of Europe. Let us suppose that a future Government, in the middle of its term, felt that it was necessary to put to Parliament a substantial surrender of power, so much so that it possibly placed the independent self-governance of this nation in question. Would not the Prime Minister be justified in those circumstances-I simply take that issue at random; there are many others-in asking the Queen for a Dissolution of Parliament? He has no manifesto commitment; this is a fundamental issue of principle. He is not seeking party advantage, but he believes in all conscience that he needs the approval of the British people. This Bill would prevent him from doing that unless he could gain the assent of 66% of the Members of the House. But he may believe, as a matter of conviction and conscience that it is vital that he should go to the people with so fundamental a proposal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Geoffrey Cox: I will in a moment, if I may.
	So again I say to the House, it is not simply a done deal. It is not an open-and-shut argument that fixed-term Parliaments are a good thing. The flexibility of our constitution, the ability of the Prime Minister to seek a Dissolution, is not always a bad thing; it can be a good thing. True it is that in recent times Prime Ministers have tended to abuse it. True it is that in recent experience they have perhaps lessened the dignity of their office by declaring elections in schools and by dithering over the timing of a general election. But that does not mean that we ought not to consider carefully a fundamental change to a fixed-term parliament. My plea today is that we do not regard this as simply a subordinate consideration. The way in which this has been introduced and the lightness with which the House is being expected to deal with this critical question troubles me.
	In my submission, the existence of the Queen's right to dissolve is in some circumstances very important. That may be why in Canada the prerogative of the Queen was preserved. Although they introduced a fixed-term parliament, the Canadians decided to retain the prerogative of the Queen to dissolve Parliament. We should think long and hard before we make a change of this kind. The role of the monarch is an important one and it is not one that we should simply discard.
	I have a number of other observations about the Bill. I am troubled about the length-five years. That means that it postpones for five years, in perpetuity hereafter, the ability of the people of this country to pass their opinion upon the performance of a Government. That is potentially too long. The people of this country, who have had no opportunity to be consulted on this issue, are entitled to be consulted in greater depth than we have done hitherto, through the processes that this House has for the taking of evidence and through the ordinary channels of political communication.
	I am troubled about the imprecision in what is intended in clause 2 as regards a motion of no confidence. Perhaps this can be tackled in Committee. The provisions seem to give rise to the realistic prospect that the courts may be tempted to invade on these matters. Let me say a few words about privilege. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn that it is probably unlikely that the courts would wish to intrude on a matter so pivotal to the workings as the Speaker certifying that there was a requisite majority under clause 2, but we cannot rule it out. As the Clerk of the Parliament has said, once we inscribe in statute, the courts are automatically engaged. It is their constitutional function to interpret a statute, and I cannot think of a single instance where the courts have declined to entertain an arguable interpretation in an arguable case.
	It is true that the courts may say, after deliberation, and after appeal upon appeal, eventually in the Supreme Court, that they have declined to consider whether the certificate issued by the Speaker is indeed a valid certificate. However, this House has tried, on many occasions, to devise so-called ouster clauses seeking to foreclose the jurisdiction of the court on a judicial review, and I cannot think of a single case in which those clauses have prevented the court from saying, "Okay, we will get involved only in certain limited circumstances, but where it is, for example, a question of the precondition for the exercise of the discretion, we will get involved." The Clerk gave a very good example when he pointed out that although clause 2 says that a certificate shall be "conclusive for all purposes", that does not, in theory, prevent the court from inquiring into whether it is a certificate at all.
	The courts have adopted precisely that analysis in the case of two or three statutes where the House has sought to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts and they have said, "No, it is our duty to scrutinise and to interpret the meaning of a statute, and where it is question of whether the essential, fundamental preconditions are met for the exercise of a discretion, we will see whether they have been met." It would be an act of voluntary self-restraint by the courts to deny themselves the jurisdiction to examine the statute to see whether the Speaker had complied. It is likely that they would exercise that voluntary self-restraint, but one cannot exclude the possibility that as time goes on-

William Cash: I am following my hon. and learned Friend's arguments with great interest. In the Parliament Acts, the expression about whether the provision is conclusive for all purposes is reinforced by the words,
	"and shall not be questioned in any court of law".
	It is curious that those words are omitted from this Bill given that would provide an additional amount of safeguard and put the courts even more on notice that Parliament had instructed them not to question any provision in any court of law.

Geoffrey Cox: I take my hon. Friend's point. However, in my experience of judicial review proceedings, no form of language has been completely successful in ousting the court's examination of a statute. This is a well-known phenomenon in administrative law. The House has, on several occasions, tried its very best, through expressions of the character that he mentions, to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, but the courts have said no. In this case, the Bill says that a certificate shall be "conclusive for all purposes", but the courts would be likely to say, "That means 'a valid certificate will be conclusive for all purposes', and we are entitled to consider whether this is a valid certificate." It would be an act of purely voluntary self-restraint if the court said, "In these circumstances we will treat this statute as non-justiciable." I can think of no examples of where the courts have yet done that. Certainly, they have held certain things to be non-justiciable, but usually because the duty is vague and the expression of the statute is more aspirational than definitive. In this case, it is clear what conditions are set out for the Speaker to pass a valid certificate for the purposes of an early election.
	In my judgment, it is not possible to rule out the courts' involvement. If that is right, we should pause. I say this to the Minister: please let us think long and hard about further consideration of this Bill, because it smacks of undue and undignified haste. I have spoken about the duration of the Parliament, and the monarch's integral and pivotal role in deciding on either declining a Dissolution, agreeing to a Dissolution or insisting on a Dissolution is vital. The Bill's imprecision on the nature of a no-confidence motion is vitally important. Why should we not pause in relation to fixed-term Parliaments? Why do we have to make law for the purposes of the long-term future? It is regrettable, and I have great trouble with this Bill, as I did with last week's Bill about the alternative vote referendum.
	As an Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives frequently criticised the then Administration for piecemeal, incoherent and fragmentary reform in constitutional affairs. Why are we repeating that error? We should be taking a long-term, coherent view of our constitution. How can it be right that we decide the electoral cycle of this House not in conjunction with a consideration of what a reformed Second Chamber would look like? How can it be right that we decide the electoral system of this House not in conjunction with the electoral system that we shall use for the Second Chamber? That would be joined-up, mature and wise constitutional law-making; this looks like something very different. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is embarrassing to be on these Benches having to listen to a Bill of this kind being put forward in such a way. I had hoped for better from this Government.

Graham Allen: First, I congratulate the members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, many of whom are here tonight, on performing a brilliant job of which I hope the House is very proud. They had a mere two or three days in which to produce for the House a first-class report; I hope that colleagues will take the chance to look at it. If it does not cover all the answers, it none the less raises most of the key questions, which can be resolved through the passage of this Bill. I thank all those Members who worked so hard on pulling the document together. I took the liberty of e-mailing it to every Member of the House within one minute of its publication on Friday morning, in the hope that those who were not out campaigning and knocking on doors at the weekend would have a chance at least to look at it and inform themselves ahead of the debate. We did the best we could, but it is still not good enough in respect of the procedures of the House. We should expect our Select Committees to have a careful, long, detailed look at the legislation that is proposed by the Government and that the House is expected to pass. We can do that by having proper pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The Bill flies in the face of effective pre-legislative scrutiny. We will do our best for the two days of Committee on the Floor of the House, but I hope very much that in future the Government will ensure that we all get adequate time to do what we are here for-to make better law. The Government-drafted law, good as it is, will always benefit from a careful, steady appraisal and from the answering of questions. That is what the parliamentary process is designed for.

Anne McGuire: Pre-legislative scrutiny is a valuable tool for the House across a range of legislation, and constitutional change has significant ramifications for a whole other range of legislation that the House has passed over many hundreds of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny should almost have been a pre-requisite before the Bill came to the House?

Graham Allen: As I would expect, my right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. As we have heard today, many people support the principle of what the Government are saying. Why lose friends by rushing the process? Why not get better law by going steadily? I am sure that colleagues know that democratic change has been dear to my heart for many years. Above all, why not build a consensus in the House for the change once it has been gone through carefully and after everyone in the House feels that they have been able to be involved-rather than everyone in the House feeling that they have been cheated and that the process has been abusive to them as Members of Parliament? I shall return to that issue a little later.
	This is a Second Reading debate, so we are talking about the big principles. The big principle is whether we should have a fixed-term Parliament. I speak personally and strongly in saying that such a Parliament is certainly needed; many of us have campaigned for one for many years. I think that it will become a steady, fixed aspect of what we do in this country. To quote the report,
	"our expectation is that future Parliaments would run for their full fixed term, and that this will become an unremarkable aspect of our modern democracy."
	That is how most western democracies operate, and they take it in their stride. That is just how things are. They have a set, fixed system and do not get terribly excited for two or three years about whether there will be a general election. They know perfectly well when their legislature and Executive are going to be elected. The process is not all covered in mysticism, judicial archaeology and obscure Standing Orders; it is there for people to see, with every elector owning their democracy.
	It was said that nobody writes to hon. Members about fixed-term Parliaments. People do not; but they do speak to all of us on the doorsteps about how they feel about politics. They feel that politics is not working and does not deliver for them. Our role is to take that general sentiment-albeit not expressed in favour of this or that clause in a particular Bill-that we must restore politics to people. That is one of the key principles underlying the idea of a fixed-term Parliament.
	I have got form on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talked about the 1992 Labour party decision. I was fortunate enough to have drafted that document. That was nearly 20 years ago and there has been a lot of discussion since, but the House is finally getting the chance to decide on whether the people of our country should know when the next general election is going to be. That is a really important step forward.

William Cash: rose-

Graham Allen: I gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is doing a great job with his Committee and I congratulate it on producing such a speedy report.
	Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the will of Parliament can easily be subjected to the will of the Whips? On a matter of great constitutional importance, it is perfectly clear that one of the main objectives would be to use the Whip system to get whatever result the respective members of the coalition Government wanted-at the expense of the people of this country, who vote for us?

Graham Allen: Indeed. One of the small matters of dispute that I have had with the hon. Gentleman over the years has been that somehow he feels that we can recreate some golden parliamentary age. This place is owned by the Executive and the alternative Executive; the hon. Gentleman, more than anybody, should know that. If he does not understand that, he falls into the same trap as the Clerk, who talked about the
	"House's mastery of its own proceedings".
	That is a myth and a self-deception. We must confront that issue. We imagine that somehow there are 650 individuals here creating our own rules, but the rules are created by the Executive.
	The Bill seeks to put into law provisions for a fixed-term Parliament, rather than putting them only in Standing Orders, which can be changed at a moment's notice. The 10 o'clock rule is suspended on a daily basis and Standing Orders are cast aside and suspended on a regular basis. To pretend that there is an atomised Parliament with 650 Members all exercising their consciences is a self-deception out of which, I hope, hon. Members throughout the House will educate themselves. In that way, we can take back some control for the House and strengthen Parliament, and people can elect us understanding that the House of Commons-the legislature -is different from the Executive, and should have its own independence and powers.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) led me down the road of the rebalancing of powers between the legislature and the Executive, and I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that this, for once, is the Executive actually giving away a power, for whatever reason. We can make our own judgments about the reason, but I welcome the change, because it helps to rebalance the power between the Executive and the legislature. If we seize this moment, we could use it to help to strengthen this institution rather than, as the hon. Member for Stone mentioned, just following the Whips. We could use this precedent to make sure that we can build up and strengthen our Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill could strengthen the standing of Parliament. However, as I understand it, the Bill does not prevent the Government's putting down a motion of no confidence in themselves and therefore, if they had a majority, getting an election whenever they wanted one. That is the ineffectiveness of the drafting of the Bill.

Graham Allen: There are so many flaws in the Bill's drafting. The Committee, on the hon. Gentleman's behalf, has done as good a job as it can in pointing them out. I hope that all of them will be put right during the Committee stage, as they could be put right if we were to have a special Public Bill Committee or a proper pre-legislative process. However, that is currently not the case. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and one that should be addressed by the Government as the Bill proceeds.
	The other thing about a fixed-term Parliament is predictability and continuity. Instead of permanent politics-as-entertainment, in which there is speculation about impending general elections and people feed tittle-tattle and gossip to raise or lower the political temperature, we will know that we can get on with serious business while knowing the date of the next general election and putting such considerations aside. That is something of great importance, and would lead to we as parliamentarians being able to seize greater control of what we do in this place on a number of issues, rather than being engaged, even at arm's length, in speculation about when an election will take place.

Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee, and for the evidence that it has taken. However, what concerns me-one of the witnesses makes this point in a written statement-is that we are talking about piecemeal constitutional change. The Labour and Conservative parties are dedicated to an elected House of Lords, for instance. How does a five or four-year term-or whatever it is-fit into the broader picture for us? That is what bothers me, so to talk about a piece of piecemeal legislation-and to ask the question "Cui bono?"-is not good enough.

Graham Allen: Perfection may be the enemy of the good in this case. As parliamentarians, we are feeding on the crumbs from the table, and I guess that this is as good as we can do. The choice is not between the Bill and a big-bang written constitution that solves all the problems in one go; the Bill is what is on offer, and as supplicants in the process, we can only try to make it a better part of this piecemeal change. Unfortunately, we do not have the option of something much more fundamental; and indeed, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would really want that. However, perhaps he does, so I will follow his speech with interest.
	The other thing about predictability and continuity is that they give Governments the chance to decide their programme and work through their Bills much more effectively. This helter-skelter "throw it into the mix" way of passing legislation debilitates Governments of all parties. Let there be proper evidence-based policy making-probably for the first time in our lifetimes-so that the Government can put things to the House of Commons that are almost fully formed, rather than throwing them in and saying, "We'll hope to amend them as they goes through this House and the second Chamber." Instead of saying, "Let's botch a few things and get hundreds of amendments down to try and get the Bill into shape," how about having proper, considered, evidence-based policy making from the Government, which would then be immensely strengthened by proper scrutiny by the House? Who loses in that process?
	Some might say, "It's going to delay things," but we did this. Indeed, a classic example from when Labour was in power was criminal justice Bills. We popped them out virtually once a year because we had not got it right the first time, but we also had to get something before the House and show that we were fighting crime. I think we can all do better than that. If we used the process that is readily available to us to consider legislation carefully, the Government would amaze themselves at the Bills they could produce for the House and the House would amaze itself at the contribution it could make by having proper scrutiny of how legislation develops.
	We have proposed, on an all-party basis, that there should be 12 weeks of pre-legislative scrutiny. To his great credit, the Leader of the House has written to the Liaison Committee saying that Bills should normally have a 12-week evidence-taking pre-legislative scrutiny period. If we can get the so-called new politics to deliver on that, so that every Bill goes through that process, we will produce much better law. However, if we just ram things through the House of Commons, it will be business as usual and legislation will be flawed. Those who throw in the bogey of the courts coming and lurking in the corridors of the House of Commons will find their wish fulfilled, because there may indeed be flaws in the legislation. I hope we will iron out all those wrinkles this week and in the days on the Floor of the House, but if we are not careful and if we do not have the right level of scrutiny, we may get what we wish for.

Anne McGuire: Given the adversarial nature of our legislative process, does my hon. Friend agree that some of the issues to which he has alluded will be difficult to iron out in the passage of this legislation and that pre-legislative scrutiny would have led not only to a far better conclusion, but one that would have gathered a consensus across the House?

Graham Allen: It is not always possible to achieve a consensus, but technical issues-whether the courts might be involved; whether the proposal might be implemented better through Standing Orders or in statute; the number of days needed after a Government have lost the confidence of the House-are the sorts of things that can be decided to everybody's satisfaction. That does not mean that everyone will be satisfied for or against a fixed-term Parliament, but that is the purpose of a Second Reading, the final reading in this House: to say yes or no to the key principles. What we in this House are failing to deliver is technically competent, thoroughly analysed and examined pieces of legislation. That is why we have Select Committees, Public Bill Committees and the Committee stage on the Floor of the House for democratic Bills. However, we as a House are robbing ourselves of the opportunity to do that work by asking our Select Committee to come up with a report, good as it is, in two or three days.

Nigel Dodds: I join others in congratulating the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on the work that they have done in the short time available. Can he share with the House what discussions he has had, and what explanation he has been given, about the failure to go down the route of pre-legislative scrutiny for this important piece of constitutional legislation?

Graham Allen: I will have to let the Minister answer that question in the wind-up. With the first Bill-on AV and boundaries-there was a desire for a referendum in May and a great rush to secure one. With this Bill on fixed-term Parliaments, which would benefit immensely from study-not delay, but getting it right-I have not really had a sensible explanation as to why it is being pushed through in the brief period when the House is back in September.
	The Bill as a concept-and so without a Second Reading-could have been discussed on the Floor of the House in June or July. Without any knowledge of the Bill, we could have discussed the key principles, but it was not put before us in a way that enabled the Committee to bring sensible and serious evidence before the House. If doing things that way could become part of the process, I would be very happy, but that would really mean putting it in Standing Orders. It is no good waiting for smoke signals from Ministers or the Leader of the House; it should be the right of this House to look at legislation. That should be what we expect, not something that may be handed down with a nod and a wink.

Pete Wishart: We all very much enjoy the hon. Gentleman's evangelical speeches on behalf of empowering the House, but there are three representatives of minority parties in the Chamber, and he will know that we do not have the same access as hon. Members in the three big parties. What is he actively doing to ensure that we are represented in all those important Committees of the House? We are not on his Committee, for example, or on the Liaison Committee, and there are so many others. Surely he could help us a bit more to get there.

Graham Allen: I do not want to go over old ground-you might pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker-but the hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of us, not least among the Select Committee Chairs, working away on that issue to try to find a happy resolution. Unfortunately, what was agreed at that moment was a satisfactory compromise, but not exactly what we might all have wanted in those negotiations. None the less, that is something that the House must continue to pursue.
	Another advantage of the predictability and continuity of a fixed-term Parliament would be that it would give Members of Parliament and their staff, and the staff of the House, some clarity about the House's timetable and calendar. That would bring some stability to the way in which staff are employed, for example, and to their holidays and their terms and conditions. Such provisions in the Bill would also give election registration officers in every locality a greater length of time to prepare than they have when a snap election is called. We have heard, in a different context, lots of stuff about people failing to register. It would be well within the compass of election registration officers to build up a registration campaign ahead of key events such as general elections, and to plan ahead for such campaigns.
	We have also heard-I think it was from the Deputy Prime Minister, or perhaps from an intervener on him-about the Electoral Commission's report, which was published today. It talks about the importance of overseas and forces voters being registered properly, and a fixed-term Parliament could broaden our democracy by making that work. At heart, however, the Bill is about restoring policy questions to our politics, and about not being so distracted by the media blood sports relating to whether we are going to have an election, in whose favour it will be and when the Prime Minister is going to go to the palace.
	Finally, I want to deal with the failure to get effective scrutiny for the Bill. That failure has meant that we have not been able to look at a large number of issues that attach to a fixed-term Parliament, including the use of royal prerogative powers and the strength of the Executive over Parliament. We have not been able to study the links between what we are proposing now and fixed-term Parliaments in other areas. We have not been able to examine prerogative powers in relation to proroguing Parliament. That has been mentioned tangentially, but why do we still have these obscure, ancient rights? No one, except those who work inside the Executive, seems to know quite where they come from or how the can be exercised. These things are not in our power; they are not part of Parliament's mastery of its own destiny.
	The power to set the date for the meeting of Parliament after a general election is not in the gift of the Members who have just been elected; it is in the gift of the Government. We are not masters of our own destiny in that regard. The power also exists for the Prime Minister to go to the Palace without any authority from Parliament. We talk about things being announced on the "Today" programme, but the Prime Minister does not even need to come to the House to announce that there is to be an election. He does not even have to come here, as the leader of the main party, to claim the right to be sent by Parliament to the palace. We see smoke and mirrors on general election night; colleagues are a passing butterfly of an electoral college that night, and they are expected simply to toe the line thereafter. That is what royal prerogative powers are about; what the term really means is Executive power. All those powers remain untouched and unlooked-at, because we were not allowed to scrutinise the Bill effectively.
	I will vote for the Bill tonight. In principle, we need a fixed term for our Parliaments. We should debate on the Floor of the House whether it is four years or five. We should, however, have had proper scrutiny. That would have made this a better Bill. I say with some empathy for the coalition Government that, above all, if they want to change the way in which we are governed, and the way in which our democracy works, they cannot do it by the old methods. They have to reach out, explain and educate. If they do not, those people who would otherwise be their friends and make a consensus work, and who would make the new democracy work and give Parliament the rights that it deserves, will not be with them. It is a great mistake to push through legislation, particularly legislation of this nature, without trying to bring people with them, and the most important people to bring with them in that regard are Members of this House of all parties.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There are 15 Members in the Chamber who wish to participate in the debate. As there is no time limit on speeches, we will not be able to fit all 15 Members in unless we see a little more progress being made. This is in hon. Members' hands, but a quick calculation shows that if each takes about 10 minutes, we might have a racing chance of fitting everyone in. I want to make that clear to everyone who wishes to speak. Otherwise, we might have to reflect on whether we need a time limit.

Mark Williams: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate, and a particular pleasure to be called to speak after the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I shall come to some of the concerns that he has raised, many of which I share. However, that does not take away my genuine pleasure at being able to speak to a Bill that, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, takes away the Prime Minister's power to choose the date of the election to suit his or her party. There are understandable concerns-perhaps more than I had envisaged when I came into the Chamber today-but my party and I see the Bill as a huge step forward.
	We have heard about somersaults in manifesto commitments, but I support the principle behind the Bill, and the need for fixed-term Parliaments has been enshrined in my party's policies and manifestos for many decades. I do not know when the four years became five during the negotiations between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat negotiating teams, but the principle is still there. Of course there are still details to be worked out in Committee and, yes, many questions should have been asked during pre-legislative scrutiny. In an ideal world, we would also have had more than two days to consider the Bill in Committee. Those are legitimate concerns, but I do not want to lose sight of the principle behind the Bill.
	I also believe that the Government are in listening mode. Concern was expressed-and shared by some on the Liberal Democrat Benches-when the 55% threshold was announced, and a vigorous campaign was set up to oppose it. The Government have listened to those concerns and revised their position, and I hope that some of the sensible comments that have been made today will attract the ear of the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
	I have served on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee for the past five years. Anyone who has served on a Select Committee will know that, when such Committees work properly, the depth of their inquiries and their capacity to call witnesses over long periods of time are not taken lightly. I share the concerns expressed by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report. It had the capacity to hold deep and meaningful discussions over a couple of sessions. I am grateful to the Chairman for the fact that I received my copy of the report very speedily; reading it over the weekend certainly informed my understanding of the matter. However, this is not a satisfactory way to proceed.
	We have also heard about the concerns of the Clerk of the House. They were articulated strongly by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). I shall not attempt, given my humble background, to denigrate the views of the Clerk of the House, but he has strongly held views, and a counter-view was put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee. All those views need to be fully examined, and we need to see a balance between different witnesses putting forward their cases. I do not, however, share the view that the Bill should not proceed as a consequence of those concerns, and I welcome the principles behind it, and the common ground that is to be found across the Chamber.
	One specific matter still concerns me, however, although I was reassured by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's comments on it earlier. It is the position in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister has talked about pursuing these matters further, and there are legitimate concerns about the prospect of National Assembly elections in Wales on the same day as the next general election for this Parliament. The consequence might be an increased turnout, but there is a genuine fear, articulated by many parties in Wales, Scotland and, no doubt, Northern Ireland as well that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish issues-the issues of the Celtic nations-will be drowned out in a national picture.

Justin Tomlinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same principle applies to having council elections on the same day-and that long-serving councillors with a good record might well be washed up in national swings?

Mark Williams: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hesitate to agree because we are talking about national elections for countries-about two general elections happening simultaneously in the same country. That is the difference. We are talking about the relationship between the media and the campaigns and the ability of the Welsh and other Celtic nations to get their message across in the national media.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that a solution would be found, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would not be acceptable to have those elections only a few months apart? We cannot be in continual election mode in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for, say, six months a year. There has to be clear blue water between the elections.

Mark Williams: That is the debate that needs to be had. I took the Deputy Prime Minister's statement as the opening gambit in that discussion. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. For the First Minister in the Welsh context simply to tamper with the date and have a general election in Wales a month after a general election would be completely unacceptable. We would have two months of perpetual campaigning and the drowning out of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish issues would still very much apply.

Roger Williams: In future elections to the Welsh Assembly, the constituencies for Westminster might not be the same as those for the Assembly, which could lead to the confusion experienced in Scotland for the same reason.

Mark Williams: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is one thing to have a general election and a one-issue referendum. I do not mind saying that I have chosen my line on that issue; my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has convinced me that the Welsh people are perfectly equipped to differentiate between one issue on one ballot paper and voting in a Welsh general election. However, having two general elections on the same day is quite another thing, not least because of the different boundaries that are likely to apply, as my hon. Friend suggests. That will lead to a huge amount of confusion. We need to take a few minutes to reflect on it; I know it is hard for Members representing English constituencies to understand. It would be immensely confusing to voters if two general elections were held on the same day. We already have difficulty in explaining the devolution settlement and how it works, and indeed explaining the distinction between powers for the devolved nations and powers exercised by this Parliament. It is a very big issue.
	I did not necessarily expect my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to address this issue, but I am very pleased that he has. We do not know what it involves- [Interruption.]-yet. He has acknowledged the problem, however, and I pay tribute to him for that, but we have to go further.

Maria Eagle: Did the hon. Gentleman not get the same impression from the Deputy Prime Minister as I did-that the solution brought forward will be that the National Assembly and the Parliaments will have to change their election dates?

Mark Williams: That might well be the consequence. I would personally much welcome the Welsh First Minister, rather than a Minister in this place, having the capacity to alter the election date, because that is what devolution is all about.

Anne McGuire: May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that that stands in contradiction to the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), when he said that he did not want us to be in perpetual electoral mode. Frankly, from what the Deputy Prime Minister said today, we are talking only about a few weeks' difference-not months or even years-between one election and the other.

Mark Williams: The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. That is why I differ slightly from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when it comes to whether it should be months or years. At the moment, there is a capacity to alter the dates for a month either side of the current arrangements, whereas I would welcome an arrangement whereby the Welsh First Minister could effect a difference of months.

Lorely Burt: I enter this nationalist debate with some trepidation because, as an English MP, I have not been involved in this type of situation. Does my hon. Friend not think that the electorates in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have the ability and intelligence to differentiate between two different elections and to make their minds up appropriately on the day?

Mark Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am drawing a distinction between a general election and a referendum. Fighting two general elections on different boundaries will potentially create huge problems. I have never doubted the intelligence of the electorate of Ceredigion to make judgments on all sorts of things, but some of the concern is legitimate. Nobody has written to me-unlike the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), I believe-about fixed-term Parliaments, but I guarantee that people outside polling stations will be very concerned if we have these two elections on the same day. There will be a lot of concern and anxiety about it. It might not have manifested itself yet, but it will if the two elections go ahead on the same day.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. Before he concludes, I would like to put on record the view I share with him that, if the date of the election is to be altered, the Assembly and the other devolved Administrations, rather than Westminster, should be given the power to determine it.

Mark Williams: I agree absolutely. As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a committed devolutionist, as am I, my party and other parties in the House. It is only right that that decision should be made in the devolved national bodies.
	That is a debate to be had, as the past five minutes have illustrated perfectly. That reinforces the point made by the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, about the extent of the scrutiny he is able to undertake. The case for pre-legislative scrutiny now seems lamentably to have passed this Bill by. These are immense constitutional issues, but I believe that there is a large-albeit not unanimous-consensus about them. I only wish we had the opportunity to illustrate it through the scrutiny work of the Select Committee and other bodies of the House.

Nigel Dodds: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. In the space of just seven days, we have faced a barrage of constitutional legislation and various announcements. Since last Monday, we have had legislative proposals on changing the voting system, reducing the number of MPs and new boundaries for constituencies right across the country within an unprecedentedly short space of time. Today we have legislation before us for fixed-term Parliaments. This morning a decision was announced about doing away with the Queen's Speech next year and moving towards five-yearly fixed Queen's Speeches in spring rather than the autumn. As I understand it, an announcement has also been made today about legislation to bring into effect the provision of a referendum whenever further powers are to be transferred to Brussels. In fact, most of the damage has already been done when it comes to transferring powers to Brussels, yet nothing is to be done about that-but that is a different debate.
	I list those legislative proposals simply to show the difference between what is happening now and the September sittings of previous Parliaments, which, frankly, amounted to nothing more than a bit of window-dressing to impress the media that Parliament and MPs were busy about their work. We cannot accuse the Government of that in this September sitting as some of the most meaty legislation has been introduced in a short space of time. I say that not to compliment the Government but to condemn them, as they have rushed through this massively important, incredibly significant constitutional legislative change, with at least five significant proposals, three of which are contained in the primary legislation.
	As the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said, the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have not shared with the House why they felt that the normal pre-legislative scrutiny period could not be afforded for the Bill. Given that the Bill has no deadline, and we are to have a two-year Parliamentary Session, there is no reason why we could not have had proper pre-legislative scrutiny. When the Minister winds up the debate, I hope that he will tell the House why it has been denied that.
	I listened carefully to the criticism made by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) of the piecemeal approach to constitutional change. Given the items of legislation and various constitutional proposals already brought forward within a very short space of time, it is obvious that there is no overall, co-ordinated, strategic approach. I favour pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills as they come forward, but the case has been made powerfully-the plethora of legislation makes the case-for a much wider consultation and consensus-building exercise when it comes to changes to our constitution, changes to how Parliament operates and changes to how our parliamentary democracy functions. It cannot be right that such major changes are introduced in a piecemeal fashion, to suit the whims of the coalition Government.
	Surely we should proceed on the basis of not just pre-legislative scrutiny, but a constitutional convention involving all parties, the wider community and the public, so that people sit down and discuss properly the way forward for the constitution of the United Kingdom. Now that we have devolved legislatures, Executives and Governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, that is all the more important. In all the debate, where have those Governments and legislatures been properly considered? That lack of consideration is only one illustration of how the Government have thus far not adhered to the respect for the devolved legislatures and Administrations about which the Prime Minister spoke when he first took office. That respect agenda has not been evident in how the Government have operated so far, certainly in relation to major constitutional issues. I appeal to the Government to build a consensus on the issues and to consult. These constitutional issues are far too important to be treated as matters of party politics, or issues to be pushed through the House as other legislation and policy issues can be at times, and should be given much wider consideration.
	Last week, I put forward criticisms of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but in principle I support fixed-term Parliaments. Many hon. Members will take different views on the different Bills. Some are in favour of the alternative vote and the boundary changes, but are against fixed-term Parliaments. Some favour fixed-term Parliaments, but are against other aspects. That shows that we need a co-ordinated approach, with a much wider, in-depth consideration of how the different pieces of legislation fit together.
	On this Bill, I agree that a fixed-term Parliament is important, and I am delighted that the 55% threshold has been removed. I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that it was removed purely because it would never have got through the House. I am also pleased that the Government have dealt with the lame-duck Parliament issue, by building in provisions for a 14-day period to allow an alternative Government to be formed. A fixed-term Parliament has the advantage of removing from the Prime Minister of the day the ability to go to the country on the basis of the best interests of his or her party, not those of the country at large. It takes away the period of intense election speculation that can arise-even in the middle of a Parliament, as we saw in 2007-and to which everything else is made subject.
	Although I welcome the principle of the Bill, there are issues that need to be addressed in Committee. For instance, some of the issues that have arisen in the debate illustrate that the Bill does not provide the certainty that people thought. Under the Bill as it stands, the Government of the day could engineer a vote of no confidence so that they can go to the country at the time of their choosing. If the Prime Minister has given up the power to go to the palace to seek a Dissolution of Parliament, what is the position in relation to a constructive vote of no confidence brought about by the Government of the day? As we know, Parliament cannot bind its successors, so any subsequent Act of Parliament can, on a simple majority, overturn a previous Act of Parliament. Despite the Bill containing a 66% threshold, any future Act of Parliament introduced by the Government of the day, were they so minded, would pass by a simple majority. Therefore, the Bill does not provide, as some have claimed, certainty for ever.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) addressed the issue of the dates of the electoral cycle. I join those Members who have raised concerns about the coincidence in 2015 of the general election and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I listened carefully to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say, and it struck me that his comments were perhaps on the hoof-I do not get the impression that a lot of consideration had been given to the point prior to the debate. He said that he will address the matter, think about it and discuss it. Will the Minister reassure the House that consultation with the devolved Administrations will be genuine, and that when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks to the folk in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, he will not simply go away and then come back and impose a solution? The proposal must be agreed with the respective devolved Administrations. It will be totally unacceptable if the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister amounts to nothing more than the usual consultation. The consultation must be genuine and must respect the views of the devolved Administrations.

Mark Durkan: When the hon. Gentleman uses the term "devolved Administrations", is he using a generic term? Is he saying that he wants the commissions or bodies corporate of the devolved institutions of the Parliament and the Assembly, rather than just the Executives, to be consulted?

Nigel Dodds: I am happy to give that assurance. That is exactly what I mean. I think that this matter is far too important for all those institutions and bodies not to be involved, and that there must be a consensus. I end where I began: with the need for consensus on these important matters, between the Government here at Westminster and the devolved Administrations and their various organs, and within those bodies. The issue is too important for people to play party politics with it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I must notify Members that, under Standing Order No. 47, I intend to impose a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches between now and the beginning of the winding-up speeches at 9.30 pm. That will give me some chance of allowing everyone to speak.

Alec Shelbrooke: I will endeavour to complete my speech within eight minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you called me at this point, because interventions on the matters that I wish to discuss were beginning to creep in, and it would have been a shame if I could not have made my speech because my points had already been made.
	A major advantage of fixed-term Parliaments is that they bring stability to the country and the markets by informing them of what a Government's legislation will be, and of whether they can steer it through without the threat of a general election that might change both the governing body and its legislation. The issue goes further than the House. I hope that the Ministers will note my comments, and will bear them in mind during the Bill's subsequent stages. There have been encouraging signs today that the Deputy Prime Minister is paying attention to the debate and is willing to make some changes.
	A relevant consideration is the way in which we approach council elections. The Government are keen to put more power into the hands of local government. I believe that local government suffers as a result of elections that are too regular, and that therefore provide for short-term governance. Currently, there are votes at least twice every four years for 76 two-tier councils and 20 unitary authorities, and there are 36 metropolitan authorities with four-year terms elected by thirds. I plead with the Minister to take on board my plea that councils should be told, "Although you have the option to move to all-out elections every four years, we want to legislate for you to do that."
	I hope that elections for police commissioners could be held at the same time. As has often been said, a local election tends to be seen as a referendum on the Government of the day. Holding both elections on the same day might save money for the public; moreover, any referendum on government would take place locally and the arguments for the police commissioner would take place independently. People may have different opinions, but we are in this place to debate issues.

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend may be suggesting something similar to mid-term elections, but one of the problems with the Bill is that it proposes a five-year cycle. If we are to opt for the system suggested by my hon. Friend, we really need a four-year Parliament with the council elections two years in, and unfortunately the Bill will not give us that.

Alec Shelbrooke: I was going to raise that point later in my speech and say that it was a matter for further debate, but I take my hon. Friend's point very seriously.
	One of the problems of annual council elections is they lead to short-termism. One councillor has said:
	"We have try to engage our electorate throughout the year. Every month we get out on the streets to remind them of the work we are doing. We want them to remember our work when they go to vote in May."
	The first couple of sentences are laudable-indeed, I hope that everyone will do as the councillor suggests-but surely people should behave in that way as a matter of course, not just because they face elections in May.
	In my city of Leeds, councillors are elected annually for four-year terms by thirds. Each election costs council tax payers £600,000. The introduction of a system of all-out four-year elections would save them at least £1.2 million. Leeds is one of five unitary authorities that make up West Yorkshire. According to a recent figure issued by the West Yorkshire electoral offices, the cost of an election for police commissioners could be as high as £1.5 million. That sum could be almost recouped if just one of those authorities was included in the election.

Louise Bagshawe: My hon. Friend is making some interesting and valid points. Does he agree that the Government's stated aim of cutting the cost of politics would be greatly served if we simplified council elections in the way that he suggests? Would not the savings be considerable?

Alec Shelbrooke: I entirely agree. Let me add that the turnout figures for the local elections in Leeds since 2003-30%, 42%-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not discussing local elections; we are discussing fixed-term Parliaments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is returning to that subject.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the advantages of a system of fixed-term Parliaments. I am arguing that it would not only save money and increase turnouts, but allow local councils to govern for the long term in conjunction with the Government. The problem now is that councils govern for the short term because there is an election every 12 months, and are always seeking the political advantage rather than thinking about what needs to be done over the long term.

Maria Eagle: I am striving to understand whether or not the hon. Gentleman is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. I hear what he says about councils, but what does he think about the Bill?

Alec Shelbrooke: I was about to end my speech, but perhaps I can put the hon. Lady's mind at rest by telling her that I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, and that I will vote with the Government this evening. I am trying to explain how I think we should be governing. I hope that my points will be taken beyond Westminster and considered at local level, because I believe that if Government are to govern for the long term-and I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments because they will remove instability-local government will benefit from the powers that we want to pass down to it, by enabling authorities to govern for the long term as well rather than having their eye on annual elections.. Otherwise, by the time a deal has been hatched they will not have even one year of governance. They will probably have a maximum of three months before starting the next electoral process.
	Thank you for indulging me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will deal with my comments when he winds up the debate.

Pete Wishart: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" is what Aretha Franklin sang so heartily back in the 1960s.  [Interruption.] From a sedentary position I am hearing pleas to sing, but I shall try to avoid doing that.
	The same mantra has been adopted by the coalition Government in the context of their relationship with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although no one would for a minute accuse Aretha of being anything less than passionate and committed to the respect agenda, I do not think that the same could be said of the coalition Government. They are not so much about "RESPECT" as "CONTEMPT". What we have seen from them is not so much a respect agenda as an almost total contempt agenda. They do not consult our Governments about any legislation that they seek to introduce, although it introduces huge constitutional reforms. They do not take any of our objections or any of our realistic difficulties seriously. We are dismissed and almost belittled when we try to make complaints, and that is not good enough. This Conservative and Liberal Government will have to learn to engage properly with the devolved institutions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If they do not know the words of "Respect", perhaps they should go and listen to Aretha once again.
	This issue follows on from last week's constitutional Bill, on which there was not a peep of consultation with any of the Governments of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, even though what is proposed in the Bills last week and today will have dramatic effects and a huge impact on the democratic processes in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	I do not have a problem with fixed-term Parliaments; we have them in Scotland and they work perfectly well. Everybody understands that we will have an election every four years. They get rid of the whole idea of prime ministerial or first ministerial advantage. They get rid of the silly and ridiculous situation we had last year when a lame duck Prime Minister hung on to the last possible minute, seeing if there were any advantage in calling an early election, and then eventually went the full term. Fixed-term Parliaments get rid of all that nonsense and are, in effect, a good thing. I support them.
	But why five years? I struggle to understand why we need to have five years for fixed-term Parliaments. Why not get in line with the rest of the UK? It is four years in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Were we to adopt a four-year fixed-term Parliament, we would not have the difficulties of clashing with the Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish elections. Surely that should be the real intention. Let us not create constitutional confusion in this country. Let us try to make sure that people can understand what is going on.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most modern comparable democracies, including elsewhere in the UK, have four-year fixed terms?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee analysed legislatures throughout the world and found that the norm was four years and that five years was very unusual. Surely the Government should be looking at what is the norm throughout the world.

Andrew Percy: As interesting as it is to hear about what is happening in other countries, I am more interested in what happens here. The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that the average length of a Parliament in this country since 1945 has been 3.7 years. Actually, four years would be a very British thing to do.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for that intervention. The shadow Justice Secretary made that point earlier. We have learned some fascinating pieces of electoral history today. The point is well made; when it comes to talking about the history of this nation-never mind international examples-four years seems to be just about the right length of time for a Parliament to get its legislative programme through.
	If we move to five years, the next general election will be on the same date as the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. What on earth were the people who came up with the Bill thinking about? Surely they looked at the date of May 2015 and thought, "Wait a minute. Something happens that day." Surely they should have thought that the thing that will happen that day is the elections throughout the rest of the UK. Either they did not know or they did not care. Which was it? Did they not care that having those elections on the same day would result in absolute and total confusion? Does the Minister know that there are different constituencies for the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments? Two different sets of returning officers and polling staff would be required. God knows what the counts would be like, but it would be an absolute recipe for total disaster.
	Any Scottish election campaign inevitably would be drowned out by the London metrocentric media. There would be leaders' debates without any representatives of the Scottish Government involved. The campaign would be skewed towards the big parties. We would have no chance whatever of getting our point across. All domestic issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be totally and utterly overlooked. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not the way to proceed with our democracy in the UK.
	It is not just about elections; it is about democracy and ensuring that people can make an informed choice when they come to put their cross on the ballot paper, whether for this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly or local elections.
	I listened with real interest and care to what the Deputy Prime Minister said about trying to address the problem. I accept that he is sincere and I look forward to hearing further plans as to how that will be done, but we cannot do it now. The returning officers in the other Parliaments and Assemblies have the power to alter the timing and dates of an election by one month. One month would make no difference whatever. Can we imagine how ridiculous it would be? We would just have gone through an election and would be celebrating victories-we hope-and then we would be off to the next one without having time to draw breath. That is nonsense and must be looked at properly.
	The Government will have to devolve powers to the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would mean reopening the relevant legislation, as that would be the only way to do it. These powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that it can determine its election date.
	I heard the Secretary of State for Scotland talk about a six-month gap between the Scottish and Westminster parliamentary elections. I do not know whether the coalition Government are starting to put that together as a solution, but six months is not good enough either. That would mean almost a whole year of elections. We would just conclude one campaign and then we would start another.

Anne McGuire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I am sorry, I cannot. I have only three minutes left and I have a few more things to say.
	We need a clear space, and six months is not sufficient to ensure properly contested election campaigns. Why must the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments move their dates? We have had our election dates set in stone since 1999. The next election will be the fourth we will contest. The Government knew that these elections would take place in May 2015. Surely it is this House that should move its date; it could go six months earlier or later. It just is not fair or right. I look forward to the Government's proposals but they must be substantial because what has been proposed so far is not good enough.
	I am pleased that the Government got rid of the silly notion of a 55% threshold for the Dissolution of Parliament. I heard some utter nonsense about the programme for dissolving the Scottish Parliament in defence of the 55% proposal. I am pleased that the Government did, more or less, adopt the Scottish system for Dissolution almost in full, and that is right.
	I want to conclude with a few words from Ron Gould, the man who was drafted in by the Electoral Commission and the Scotland Office to look at the disaster that was the last Scottish parliamentary elections. We remember it not only because of the fantastic SNP victory, but because of the 140,000 spoilt ballot papers that resulted from the previous Government's combining of local authority elections with Scottish parliamentary elections, using three different electoral systems. We cannot allow that to happen again. The paramount concern of the House must be the electorate; they must have free and fair elections and must not be confused as to how they make their choice.
	Aretha sang about respect. I hope that the Minister is listening, that he can start to get the respect agenda back on the rails and that he will listen to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that we do not have three elections on the same day.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on his excellent maiden speech? I agreed with every bit of it other than, I am afraid to say, his conclusion.
	There are three things that I would like to look at briefly: first, the broad constitutional issues; then some of the detail of the debate; finally, the process. I hope that I can do that in the time allowed.
	On the broad constitutional issue, I think that fixed-term Parliaments are a mistake. It is unfortunate to undermine a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy needs to preserve some role for the sovereign within it-some purpose in having that final arbiter of the system that is above and beyond politics. I am very nervous about giving that role to the Speaker, as this Bill proposes, because, first, it is a bad idea to have a Head of State and a quasi-Head of State-one is quite enough for me, and a hereditary Head of State whom we have had for the best part of 1,000 years seems a pretty good one to have. Such an approach would also bring the Speaker, who will not be advised by the Prime Minister in this area, into the murky part of party politics. There is a risk that the Speaker could give his certificate for a general election-the most important part of our democratic process-as a matter of political controversy, and that cannot be wise. Let us consider the recent discussion on whether or not something is a money Bill, because that is already putting the Speaker in the political spotlight. A money Bill is an obscure procedural measure, whereas a general election is at the heart of everything that we do. So bringing the Speaker, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues into this murky business will be a mistake.
	That leads to the issue of where the courts come in-a matter that has been discussed in this debate. I am not a lawyer, but I can say that the thing to bear in mind about Bradlaugh's case is that the House of Lords ruled that it should not intervene in the procedure of the House of Commons, because at that point the highest court in the land was, of course, one of the Houses of Parliament. That is no longer the case, and with the Supreme Court outside Parliament, the constraint does not apply, so the courts may be willing to be more enthusiastic in their interpretation of statute than they were when the House of Lords was our supreme court. Those are the broad constitutional issues that give rise to concern.
	We must then consider the Bill itself and what it contains. The problem with the Bill is that perhaps the best reason for voting for it is that it is pointless. The Whips have certain powers, authority and wise influence that they bring to bear and they could say to me and to other hon. Members that it might be best if we were absent when another hon. Member had tabled a motion of no confidence-they might suggest that we went on a nice trip, to the Seychelles or some such place. That motion would then pass, the Speaker would have no choice but to issue his certificate and, hey presto, we would have a general election at the time of the Prime Minister's choosing. That is a rather foolish approach to legislation.
	I doubt whether the 65% hurdle would ever come into effect, but it would be objectionable if it did get into law because it would set a requirement for more than a simple majority, for the first time in the history of this Parliament. That would be a procedural mistake; one vote ought always to be enough. It would also require a percentage of 66 and two thirds of those who are available to vote-not of those who actually vote. Interestingly, a Government who are introducing that into legislation are reluctant, so I hear, to have a turnout threshold in a referendum on the alternative vote. One may see some implicit contradiction in those two suggestions. So, the Bill is rather a hollow shell.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It would be an honour.

Alec Shelbrooke: I want to pick up on that point about the alternative vote and what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said about spoiled ballots in Scotland. Does this not further the case that a first-past-the-post election is by far the most effective?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he did not take us back to the local elections in Leeds-I thought that we were at risk of that.
	I come to the process of the Bill and how we have reached this point. How did we come to consider a fixed-term Parliament? I am not aware that many of my hon. Friends put this proposal in their election addresses-they may have done if they were Liberal Democrats, but not if they were Conservative. It is not a Conservative proposal in any sense. It got into the coalition agreement late at night, in what would have been a smoke-filled room had not the previous Government banned smoking in office spaces. This therefore took place in a smoke-free environment-a healthy and politically correct room-and late at night it was decided that it would be a good idea to shore up the coalition for five years.
	The political arguments for this Bill are first class, but it changes the constitution-a constitution that has evolved. Pitt the Elder, a Whig Prime Minister-it is always nice in the spirit of coalition to quote the Whigs-talked of the "genius of the constitution". Let us invoke that genius, which has let our constitutional processes evolve and develop. This has not been done because the coalition needed some quick fix to make sure that the next election would clash with elections in Scotland and Wales-that is, of course, an inadvertent result of what has happened. The coalition did not come to this agreement with the possibility of extending the life of a Parliament beyond five years. I am sure that all hon. Members have read the note from the Library pointing out that this legislation will not be subject to the Parliament Act if the other place disagrees, because it extends the life of a Parliament by another two months should the Prime Minister, by order, so wish to do. This is an accidental Bill, thought up in the late hours of the night. It takes away that wonderful flexibility that our constitution has had to meet the needs of circumstances and to evolve.
	One way in which the constitution was beginning to evolve, which the electorate seemed to want, was that a Prime Minister's resignation part way through a Parliament should lead to a general election. When I knocked on doors in my constituency, people did not tell me that they wanted fixed-term Parliaments, the alternative vote or any of that. However, they did ask who had voted for the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). People in North East Somerset of course knew his constituency, because they are a knowledgeable lot. They asked who had elected him to be Prime Minister. Although the constitution is clear that we can change Prime Minister as often as Her Majesty sees fit, the mood of the country is for that constitutional evolution. That is how our constitution works and how it has done for hundreds of years-at least since the Glorious Revolution. Let us hope that it continues to work like that and that this Bill is amended on the Floor of the House out of all recognition.

Anne McGuire: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The style, tone and content of his speeches are always worth listening to, even though we may not always agree with his analysis. Like many Labour Members, I have not always been in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, but over a long period in politics I have come to understand the reason for them. I always found the excitement of the prime ministerial prerogative enticing and, over the years, we have always been able to persuade ourselves that the argument for it was the overwhelming one. I also remember James Callaghan going to the TUC and singing his famous ditty, "Waiting at the church". At the time, I recognised that his political party was on a state of alert, but the rug was pulled from beneath us in October 1978.
	The argument against fixed-term Parliaments has always been about political advantage but, as we have heard, there has never been a political disadvantage in having fixed terms for local authorities. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive also operate within a fixed-term context. Given that experience, some of the arguments against the political prerogative of the Prime Minister can be overwhelming. It is not whether or not there is a prerogative to call an election that gets a Government re-elected; it is about the performance and credibility of the political parties during any election, be it at the end of a fixed term or not.
	So having undergone this Pauline conversion on the principle, I cannot begin to describe my disappointment at this Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister told us, in one of those extravagant flourishes of which he is so fond, that the electoral reforms that he was presenting to us-over the past two weeks, as it turns out-would be the greatest reforms since 1832, never mind the other suffrage legislation in the 19th century, the introduction of votes for women in the 20th century, the reforms removing the financial powers from the House of Lords, or indeed the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies by the last Labour Government. This was to be his Great Reform Bill. Yet what we have before us is a Bill that is being rushed through with no opportunity to consider it properly or to deal with its implications.
	Professor Robert Hazell of University College London's constitution unit said about that approach in his written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the Bill had been
	"prepared on an extraordinarily rushed timetable. It was introduced with no prior consultation, no Green or White Paper. Nor has time been allowed for pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill."
	According to both the Clerk of the House and the Chairman of the Select Committee this Bill was ripe for pre-legislative scrutiny, and such scrutiny could have sorted out some of the issues raised today.
	We must ask ourselves why the Bill has been rushed through, as there is ample time for pre-legislative scrutiny. The coalition has already said that it intends to stay with us for five years. Unless its confidence is disguising an uncertainty as to whether it will survive for that long, the Prime Minister has laid out the ground rules for this Parliament: we are here for the duration.
	Why was there no Green or White Paper? Why are some Liberal Democrats, who wanted to subject everything to pre-legislative scrutiny when in opposition, not pushing harder for this Bill to receive such scrutiny? Surely a minimum of 12 weeks would not scupper the Bill, undermine the principles or erode support. Surely the Government have more confidence in their proposals than that.
	The establishment of a Scottish Parliament was linked to a debate in this House, a White Paper and a referendum, and a consensus on the proposals was built up. We heard last week that we will have a referendum on the alternative vote. Why are we to have a referendum on AV but not one on fixed Parliaments? Surely the two votes could have been linked. Also, why is reform of the House of Lords being taken slowly yet this reform is being rushed through?
	As other Members have said, constitutional Bills are not straightforward. I was astonished to hear the Deputy Prime Minister saying that this is a short Bill. It may be a short Bill, but, as others have pointed out, it is long on implications. We do not know whether this will be the case, but we could find ourselves with a conflict between the courts and the House of Commons. We needed to have a discussion about that.
	We heard from the Deputy Prime Minister today that there might be options to delay, but the only example he gave was the delay of the local government elections in 2001 because of foot and mouth disease. What will the criteria be for assessing whether the Prime Minister should exercise the right to delay? Also, although it has been said that we will have ample opportunity to discuss the Bill and change it over two days of debate in this House, that is no substitute for a proper discussion of, and investigation into, the ramifications of this constitutional Bill.
	As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said-he will be astonished that I have now mentioned him twice in my contribution-the issue of the clash with the elections for the devolved Parliament and Assemblies should not be underestimated. That is nothing to do with the intelligence of the electorate; it is to do with the democratic integrity of those Assemblies and that Parliament. They have their own democratic remit and integrity, and we should not undermine that by overlaying our elections on top of theirs.
	Frankly, this is a dog's dinner of a Bill. I have seen some dog's dinners in government, but this one takes the biscuit.  [ Laughter. ] The dog biscuit. It would have been a far better Bill if the Deputy Prime Minister had listened to the advice of wiser heads than his own. Frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister is no Lord Grey; he is no Whig reformer. He needs to go back to the drawing board, and he needs to ensure that the Bill that comes before this House on Third Reading is far better than the one in front of us today.

Julian Sturdy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to today's debate, as political and constitutional reform remains a key objective for this new Parliament. I shall, however, try to be brief as I am conscious of the fact that time is limited.
	It is of the utmost importance that Members on both sides of the House consider the current state of our politics when addressing this Bill. It is fair to suggest that now, following the general election, it is time for this Parliament to move on from the recent depressing chapter in our political history. I believe that we cannot reflect on the current state of our politics and deny that some form of constitutional reform is required. All of us in this House are now charged with the responsibility of restoring the public's trust in our democracy and I welcome this Bill.
	Some powerful arguments and good points have been made by Members on both sides of the House, and I must confess to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that I did not have anything to say about fixed-term Parliaments in my election address. However, I have been an enthusiastic supporter of fixed-term Parliaments since long before I was elected to the House, and I have always supported this Bill. I consider the current process for the Dissolution of Parliament to be outdated. Under current legislation, the Government of the day retain the ability to call an election as and when they choose within a parliamentary term, subject to the Monarch's approval. I fear that that provides any Government with an unfair advantage, and often encourages a crude, tactical political game to take place. As such, I strongly support the Prime Minister for taking the principled decision to give up his privileged ability to call an election. His absolute commitment to political reform cannot be doubted-but I do not think that was shared by his predecessor.
	As set out under the Bill, the date of the next general election is to be 7 May 2015. Such a simple piece of reform immediately provides voters with greater clarity and understanding about their political system. To my mind, voters deserve to know when they can expect to re-elect or ditch their Government.
	However, it is also essential for Parliament to retain the ability to hold the Government to account and, if necessary, force an early election, and I believe that that controversial issue has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion through the provisions in clause 2. Ultimately, the House will be able to force an early election by either a vote of no confidence in the Government or a vote of at least two-thirds of all Members in favour of such an early election.
	This Chamber's power will be protected, and I support the fact that the Bill deliberately seeks to weaken the hand of the Executive while injecting an element of reassurance and transparency into our often turbulent political world. It is not just the political village here in Westminster that will benefit from the stability of fixed-term Parliaments; the wider world of business will benefit, too. For too long, Prime Ministers have been able to call an election that suits their own political ends, yet such uncertainty and speculation often cause instability in our economic markets, which are constantly wary of potential political upheaval.
	The most obvious example, which has been mentioned by hon. Members already, is the negativity that can flow from such an occurrence. Such negativity flowed from the threat of an election back in September 2007, when many of us in this Chamber were still candidates. The previous Prime Minister used the threat of an election as a political weapon in my view-a tactic that eventually backfired spectacularly, creating uncertainty in the country and in our economic markets while disrupting important parliamentary business.
	Fixed-term Parliaments are perfectly normal in countless other democracies.

George Howarth: Let me be absolutely clear in my mind: is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the electoral cycle needs to be aligned with the economic cycle?

Julian Sturdy: No, my point is that political uncertainty in the process that we have had-and that we had in 2007-can cause economic uncertainty. That is obviously bad news for our economy. Putting the election on a firm footing through fixed term Parliaments benefits our business colleagues and our economy as well as Parliament.

Gavin Shuker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that for this coalition to keep on going positively for the economy it needs to be held together by such legislation?

Julian Sturdy: I do not believe that at all. This is part of a constitutional reform that must bring back trust to our politics. That is why I am supporting it: we need to bring the public back in line with this House. This is not the full picture, but it is part of that process. That is why I will support the Bill this evening.
	Parliament will be strengthened by the Bill. It will produce a stable Government, which is important to our country.

Austin Mitchell: Here we are in the second week of the great Liberal Democrat benefit sitting with a measure that is even sillier than the ones we brought in during the first week, with another fix from the gerrymander unit at Cowley street-I do not know why they do not just call it Tammany hall and have done with it-to try to fix the constitution to keep the coalition in power.
	We have all been dreadfully mealy-mouthed about this measure, saying that it is a constitutional measure and that we should consider it seriously and make changes, but we are kidding ourselves. It is not a constitutional measure at all. It is a post-nuptial contract. Here we have two parties in a loveless shotgun marriage that do not really trust each other, so they are bringing in a Bill to make divorce more difficult. That is what it is all about.
	The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) spoke about building trust, but the whole point of this Bill is that they do not trust each other. The Liberal Democrats do not trust the Conservatives-they fear that they will be dumped when they have made themselves sufficiently unpopular by betraying all their principles, all their friends and all their supporters-whereas the Conservatives are afraid that the Liberal Democrats will get cold feet and pull the plug on the coalition because they cannot stand the heat of the cuts, because the alternative vote is defeated leaving them with nothing left to show for the thing or because they want to stop redistribution. Because of that lack of trust, we get this rather silly and unnecessary Bill, and I certainly hope to vote against it tonight.
	The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that we could be absolutely confident that the courts would not be able to interfere, in the same way as he told us that we could be absolutely confident that the cuts would not damage the poor and would not hurt the north. He said that we could have absolute confidence in all that but I am ceasing to have any confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister and his declarations of absolute confidence. The simple point about the courts intervening is that we do not have in the Bill a definition of a vote of confidence. What is a vote of confidence? The courts could well rule on that. As it has to be certified by the Speaker, the courts could rule on the question of whether the certificate is valid. Most importantly, I am against the Bill because it extends the life of a Parliament. That is the exact opposite of what we need to do.
	The average Parliament lasts about four years and has done so since the war. It has lasted for three years and eight months if we date it from 1832. Four years was the period envisaged by Asquith when the Septennial Act 1715 was repealed by the Parliament Act 1911. Four years was the period in the Liberal Democrat agenda. The policy paper for the 2007 conference, "For the People, By the People", argued:
	"Liberal Democrats have long argued that parliaments should last for a fixed term of four years."
	There we are-that is a clear statement. I ask the Liberal Democrats if there is any principle they are not prepared to betray. They have already betrayed their preference for proportional representation in favour of the alternative vote and now they are betraying their preference for four-year Parliaments.
	Four years was also the term that the Labour party envisaged when it was in our manifesto, although I must admit that I did not read it; I did not even remember that it was in our manifesto. I do not read much of the manifestos but as it was in one, we should have some deference for that, I suppose. Why should we extend the term to five years? Is it because the Government are so afraid that the vandalism that they are doing to the benefit system, with the cuts to welfare, and to the economy will make them so unpopular that they will have to sit things out for five years? Is it because they will not be able to face the people before then? That is the only reason I can think of for extending it to five years.
	I would like parliamentary terms to be reduced not to four years, which seems to be the opinion of the wiseacres, but to three. We should contract the terms and have triennial Parliaments as was the case at the end of the 17th century before they were extended to seven years.

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the mid-19th century, one of the Chartist demands was for annual Parliaments?

Austin Mitchell: As a Member who came in on the wave of opinion produced by the Chartists-it seems so long ago-I will not go to the extreme of saying that we should have annual Parliaments, but the American House of Representatives is elected every two years; there is a radical proposal. I am being very moderate. Let us have three-yearly elections as we used to have in the 17th century and as they have in Australia and New Zealand. I have spent a long time in New Zealand lecturing in political science and praising the three-year term, which works very well. The virtue of a three-year term is that it keeps Parliament in close touch with the people.
	We all remember the explosion of misunderstanding that hit us recently-the alienation, apathy and demands that we should get in touch with the people. We had inured ourselves in the Westminster bubble or glasshouse and people had to throw stones at the glass to break into us. We were out of touch with the people. That was the massive cry that we heard last year and in the election this year. In Grimsby, when I go down to the docks or around the houses, people say, "It's lovely to see you; you come so often-you shouldn't trouble yourself to come as much as you do," but other Members have told me that when they go canvassing, people say, "Oh, you only come when there's an election. There must be an election, because we never see you between elections." That was part of the explosion of mistrust between the people and Parliament that occurred last year.
	How do we get around that problem? The Power report, three years back, indicated the massive degree of alienation, the massive misunderstanding and ignorance about politics and the massive mistrust of politicians. People think that politicians are in politics only to further their own ends and to enrich themselves. How do we get around that? We can get do so by bringing ourselves into closer touch with the people through triennial elections, as works well in New Zealand. There is no more effective way of keeping a Government under control, seeing that the Government serve the causes of the people and seeing that MPs work for the people-that we do our duty in our constituencies-than having three-year Parliaments. That is what we need.
	I will not go on; I have only a couple more points to make. The measure has been described as binding but of course it is not. An extension of the parliamentary term could easily be repealed by the next Parliament because Parliament cannot bind itself. Indeed, it could be amended in this Parliament-if the Liberal Democrats do want to break away at some stage they could bear that in mind. The measure does not abolish the Prime Minister's power. There is the example of what Schröder did in Germany in 2005. He arranged a vote of confidence, told his Ministers not to support the Government and was defeated so that he could have an election. That case went to the constitutional court to decide whether it was legal. There could be a similar situation here, with, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said, MPs from the Back Benches being sent on lovely trips to the Seychelles, so those safeguards do not apply.
	The main point is that we have an opportunity to bring ourselves closer to the people. We should ratify and accept the power that they wanted. There was alienation in 2009 and 2010. Let us get close to the people; let us have triennial Parliaments.

Eleanor Laing: We last debated this matter in the House on 16 May 2008. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said earlier this evening, on that occasion the Conservative Opposition did not oppose the Bill. I know that because I was speaking for the Opposition on that day. We said the matter was worthy of exploration and discussion and that we did not oppose the principle of fixed-term Parliaments.
	I am sorry to have to quote myself, but I have checked exactly what I said:
	"A cross-party organisation called Fixed Term was set up in October 2007...and has published the results of a poll conducted in October 2007. It found that 25 per cent. of Conservative MPs, 41 per cent. of Labour MPs and 88 per cent. of Liberal Democrat MPs support fixed-term Parliaments. If anything was to convince me to be against any Bill it would be the fact that 88 per cent. of Liberal Democrats...are in favour of it."-[ Official Report, 16 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1714.]
	Well, times change- [ Interruption. ] Don't they just. I do not know what the percentages are today, but there are good reasons for the Bill and I am happy to support it. However, that does not mean I shall not criticise it.
	When the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the proposals some months ago, he said that the Bill was intended to strengthen the power of the House. I do not believe that it does so. At the moment, the House can bring about Dissolution by a simple majority, but the Bill will require in most cases a two-thirds majority. I do not believe that the Bill takes power away from the Executive and gives it to the House. That does not mean the Bill is fatally flawed; it just means that we ought to look at what it really does and not pretend that it gives more power to Parliament.
	I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to the concern we debated earlier and which was raised by the Clerk of the House before the Select Committee. I am honoured to be a member of the Committee and I endorse what its Chairman said earlier in the debate. Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, it is possible that the Bill could bring about judicial review of events that occur and decisions that are taken in the House. I do not want to see that happen, not just as a matter of principle but because it disturbs the stability of the constitution and of the House. I sincerely hope that the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend have taken into consideration the concerns expressed by the House today and by the Select Committee and that we will return to these matters in Committee.
	The evidence put before the House today is not conclusive. It is one legal opinion against another legal opinion, and the integrity of the House and what happens here should not be left in the balance between one legal opinion and another. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider that point in Committee.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is possible that the very fact that the Clerk of the House of Commons has taken one view and that other lawyers have taken another view-albeit in a strange sequence-could be a reason why a court would be more than concerned to issue a judgment in its jurisdiction?

Eleanor Laing: Yes. As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important legal point and we must not lose sight of it. We must remember that at one level we can have party political banter and House of Commons arguments, but at another level we must respect the stability of our constitution. It is not just a matter of legal opinion but of consulting the law properly. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has just said will be taken into consideration by Ministers.
	We have to put the Bill in its true context. It is rare for me to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).

Austin Mitchell: It's a nice experience.

Eleanor Laing: It is a great pleasure.
	There is no harm in being honest about matters in the Chamber. The measure is entitled "Fixed-term Parliaments Bill", but no Parliament can bind its successors. The measure is really "The date of the next election (cementing the coalition) Bill". That is what it is for, and I support it for that purpose, but we should not pretend that it is for any other purpose. It has many practical advantages, which are obvious and have been debated well this evening. The stability of the coalition and of the Government to get this country out of the dreadful economic mess in which the Labour Government left us requires such a Bill if we are to make progress.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady suggests that the Bill relates strongly to the coalition, but it is foreseeable that the coalition could dissolve, but not Parliament, so we would be in a twilight zone.

Eleanor Laing: That is exactly the point that I am about to make. We are discussing the transfer of power, and the Bill brings about the transfer of immense power to the person of the Deputy Prime Minister. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the arithmetic shows that the 14-day process could be instigated under the Bill. It is perfectly possible that as early as next spring the Liberal Democrat party could decide not to support the Conservative party in coalition. We could go into the 14-day period, and a coalition could be formed by the Labour party, all the other Opposition parties, and the Liberal Democrat party. There could be a completely new Government without our consulting the electorate. That could happen in the foreseeable future, although I sincerely hope that it does not. I do not think that it is likely, but the arithmetic means that it is possible, and we must be aware of that as we introduce the Bill.

Lorely Burt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: I would like to do so, but I cannot, because other Members are waiting to speak.
	The Opposition have been self-righteous in their criticism of the way in which the Government are introducing constitutional change. Let us not forget the piecemeal way in which the Labour Government brought about constitutional change. Indeed, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that they introduced received about 18 months of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was introduced in the House, and completed all its stages in plenty of time. Half an hour before Third Reading, the Labour Government introduced about 100 pages of amendments. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and just before its final consideration, they added an entire new Bill on a referendum on the alternative vote. The Opposition should therefore be careful in their self-righteousness about the way in which we conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. Having said that, I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee-he had no responsibility for the previous Government, or very little, I think.
	It is wrong to introduce constitutional change in a piecemeal fashion. We should look at the overall effect of the legislation before us, not just the particular issue that is under consideration. It is wrong, at any time, to do constitutional change in one place, then in another. We ought to look at the whole constitution to see how it is balanced. It is, however, our duty in the House to do not what is in the short-term expedient but what is in the long-term right. I am willing to put aside that important principle this evening for the greater good of the stability of the coalition and the stability that that brings to our country. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to support the Bill.

Gavin Shuker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate about the future of this place and our place in society. It is a pleasure to listen to so many speeches about various aspects of the Bill and to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who spoke for eight minutes about aspects of the Bill, but by the end I could not understand many of the things that were praiseworthy about it.
	The Bill, which is one of a series of major constitutional measures to be introduced by the Tory-Lib Dem Government, represents a short-term compromise to hold together two coalition partners, but with a long-term hangover, or a series of hangovers, as the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged today. Our constitutional settlement has emerged and endured. Over the generations, the wash of constitutional change has flowed over the rock that is Parliament, sometimes gently eroding and reshaping. At other times in violent squalls our settlement has been remodelled. The Bill, alongside the Bill that we discussed previously, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, places high explosives under that rock, and the Tory Government, propped up by Liberals, are perfectly happy to light the fuse. Perhaps there are legitimate arguments for doing so. Perhaps the Conservatives are true revolutionaries. I would like everyone's voices to be heard first and to proceed by consensus.
	The previous Government took the view that constitutional change reflects the fact that we are custodians of that consensus, not masters of it. In other words, they sought to proceed by consultation, even at the cost of measures such as House of Lords reform failing to go forward. The present Government are content fundamentally to redesign major aspects of our constitution with limited consultation and scrutiny, at a time when our constitution is evolving by convention as a result of events, and largely for their own short-term gain. That cannot be right.
	I cannot support the Bill in its current form. Even if the case can be made for fixed-term Parliaments, safeguards in the Bill serve to take power from Parliament, rather than give it back to this body. Without a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill or pre-legislative scrutiny, we are being asked to agree a big practical change to the way that our Government and Parliament act. That cannot be right, either.

William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote against the Bill, although those on his Front Bench said earlier that they would vote for it?

Gavin Shuker: I am happy to clarify that. If there is a Division on Second Reading, I will vote with my conscience. I do not believe that this is the right Bill and I shall explain why in more detail.
	The Bill is the wrong prescription for a problem of the Government's own making. If they were truly committed to giving power back to Parliament, they would give us a free vote on the length of the term. They would consult prior to the publication of the Bill. They would seek to bring the Opposition parties with them, but they have not done so.
	As we heard earlier, when a five-year parliamentary term was introduced by the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, he believed that that would
	"probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years"-[ Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1749.]
	One hundred years on, I find no fault in his analysis and no credit in the Deputy Prime Minister's interpretation of his words earlier today. I was tempted to intervene and point out that I had known H. H. Asquith, and that he was no H. H. Asquith.
	If the Bill is passed in its current form, we will see four-year Parliaments, followed by one-year election campaigns. The mood of the British people is not for that. Most European countries have four-year cycles, and I believe that the disinterested consensus in the House would be for four years. Four years is surely better than five. Even so, I accept that under the amendment to be moved tonight, which would introduce a four-year term, the risk of a lame duck Parliament looms large. It is an inevitable cost of having a fixed term for our Parliament, and it deserves far greater discussion than it will receive today.

Michael Ellis: The hon. Gentleman says that most European countries have four-year Parliaments. Is he aware that France and Italy, as well as South Africa, have five-year Parliaments, and that two of the last three Parliaments in this country have been five years?

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which the Deputy Prime Minister made earlier. Perhaps we should not take that as the primary decider for how we set that term. We could look at how good or bad those five-year Parliaments were, a matter which I am sure many Conservative Members will wish to raise.
	Let us be clear as to what drives the Damascene conversion of the Liberal Democrats from a four-year fixed term to five, and of the Conservatives who had no measure in their manifesto to bring this about. It is to prevent the Government Members from breaking out in a "West Side Story" style gang fight before the next election. The British people should not have to pay such a high price for their lack of self-discipline. The constitution should not be forced to endure such breakneck change. By seeking to serve themselves, the Government have done a disservice to the people whom they claim to serve.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). I agree with much of what he had to tell the House. I also very much agree with the two brilliant speeches that we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox).
	I became involved in this debate quite early on in this Parliament when I was lucky enough to be called to move the first Adjournment debate of this Parliament on 25 May on the subject of the Dissolution of Parliament. On that occasion there was a lot of ridicule of the Government in relation to the proposal for a 55% threshold and a binding motion relating to that. The Deputy Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench now, responded to that debate and asserted that it was absolutely important to stick to the 55% commitment because it was in the manifesto, and so on.
	I am delighted that the coalition had second thoughts, and I hope that it will have second thoughts about a lot of this Bill as well. But I am very concerned that a couple of things that the hon. Gentleman said on that occasion have not been borne out by tonight's proceedings. He said that there would be a second opportunity, after the debate on the original motion, to consider the constitutional legislation. He said:
	"Unlike what happened under the previous Administration, it will not be guillotined."
	We will see what happens at the end of two days of debate, but if at the end of those two days not all the amendments have been reached, the only consequence will be that it will be guillotined, and the only consequence that will flow from that is that what the hon. Gentleman said on that occasion will not be capable of delivery. I am happy to allow him to intervene on me now to put the record straight and say that if at the end of two days' debate we have not covered all the ground, we will get extra time from the Government.
	The next thing the hon. Gentleman said was that he believed that
	"there is merit in listening to what people have to say about the legislation after it is published, rather than being too precipitate in moving from the motion, which will be debated...to the legislation in due course",
	and he sought to give some reassurance to the House. In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), he went on to say:
	"May I remove any view that the hon. Gentleman might have formed that I am reluctant to entertain the possibility of pre-legislative scrutiny? We have simply not determined the treatment of the Bill yet...but I hear what he says. There is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I do not want to extend the consideration of this legislation into the following Session, because that would not be appropriate."-[ Official Report, 25 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 147-152.]
	In the light of what has been announced today, that gives us, on my understanding, about 18 months in which we can consider this Bill in detail. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House did not have that in mind at that stage, because this Government seem to think things up as they go along, but now he realises that there will possibly be a two-year first Session of this Parliament, would he like to intervene to assure me that as a result there will be more time to discuss this Bill?
	I am particularly keen that there should be more time to discuss the interaction between the Bill and the proposed changes to the other place. If we were to have an elected Second Chamber, on what basis would we have those elections? When would they be held? How would they interact with the fixed-term Parliament arrangements that we are discussing? It seems as though, almost by design, the Government are legislating in a piecemeal fashion so that this Bill will be out of the way before we are able to ask any questions about the interaction between it and the proposals they are going to bring forward in the form of a draft Bill at the turn of the year. This is an extremely serious matter. I despair at the fact that the Government seem to think they can pull the wool over the eyes of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	This Bill is unnecessary. Why is the Prime Minister's word that he will not go to the country until 7 May 2015 not good enough? It is certainly good enough for me; why is it not good enough for other people? As we heard in the evidence from the Clerk of the House, if there is a desire to give some sort of quasi-statutory backing to these proposals, that could easily be achieved by changing the Standing Orders of the House. The Bill challenges and undermines the historic right of this House to vote a Government out of office with a bare majority. In the Select Committee we heard evidence from Professor Blackburn, who was in favour of a simple majority in order to bring a Parliament to an end if that were the wish of the people. Why do we not trust Members of this House? Why do we not trust the people? I can remember when Ted Heath thought he was acting in his own self-interest and went to the people, and the people had a different view. That is exactly what happens if one trusts the people-why tinker with the constitution in this way?
	I am very concerned about this Bill, and I am sorry that, for the second occasion in as many weeks, I will not be supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight. However, that is not a consequence of my failure to follow our manifesto-it is a consequence of the Government introducing legislation that was never in the manifesto. Indeed, in the middle of the election campaign the Prime Minister made a comment that was totally at odds with the current proposals. I could not follow what the Deputy Prime Minister said about how the Bill effectively builds on what the Prime Minister said on that occasion about having a general election within six months of a change of Prime Minister. That would be more popular and more understandable; perhaps we could make that amendment to the Bill. Instead, the Government seem to want to ensure that this Parliament continues not only for a five-year period but perhaps even for a couple of weeks beyond that. It is not justified, and it is completely over the top. In the end, this sort of behaviour by the Government-the high-handed procedural way in which they are trying to force this legislation through, and its content-will be their own undoing.

Sheila Gilmore: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I will be brief.
	I want to address in particular the length of the proposed fixed terms and how, by choosing the dates that have been chosen, we are running into totally unnecessary conflict with the devolved Parliaments. In opening the debate, the Deputy Prime Minister suggested that he had now realised there was an issue with this. When he came to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee before the recess, that issue was pointed out to him very clearly, but until today he appeared to have chosen to ignore it or to brush it off as irrelevant.
	There may have been confusion in some people's minds between the potential coincidence of next year's Scottish Parliament elections and the AV vote and the potential clash in 2015. There are some problems with both things, but I concede that next year's clash is not in any way as serious as the potential clash in 2015 and the one that would come along some years further into the future, although most of us would probably not be around to deal with it-not as elected Members, at least.
	The coincidence of the two general elections is a serious issue. I do not know whether everybody is aware that in Scotland a decision has been taken to move the local elections, which should have been due next year, to another year, to avoid the clash that happened in 2007; that was between local elections and the Scottish Parliament election. We have already made that move, only to discover that in some ways it has been completely undone by what might be allowed to happen here in Westminster.
	The matter has been raised not only by the Select Committee but by many other commentators and it should have been addressed before now. There is no reason not to address it. Given that the bulk of the information and evidence that has come to the Select Committee also supports four-year terms, the easiest way out of the difficulty is for the Bill to be amended to allow for such terms. All the complications about whether to have the elections a month apart, which, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, would be absolutely ludicrous, or six months apart, which would be equally unacceptable, would disappear if we set four-year terms in train.
	The change would be simple to make and it would be nice to think that we could carry it out without getting into complicated cross-jurisdictional issues about election dates. The elections are different and the issues are very different. It is undoubtedly true that the issues that the devolved Parliaments would want people to pay attention to will simply be swamped if there is a Westminster general election at the same time. I do not mean that we as politicians would cause that to happen; the media, however, would certainly concentrate on what they would see, rightly or wrongly, as the big election.
	Let us not underestimate the differences between boundaries. When the Scottish Parliament elections take place next year, my Westminster constituency will have four different MSPs in it; that is how different the boundaries are. These are no minor differences.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady has just verified the criticisms that many of us made in respect of the importance of coterminosity between one legislature and another. I hope she will agree that that ought to be borne in mind by future Governments.

Sheila Gilmore: We appear to have lost coterminosity entirely in Scotland, and that is an issue because the situation there is making it extremely difficult for people to have more engagement in politics and a better relationship with their elected representatives. When I tell people, "I am your Westminster MP, but this person will be the candidate for that part of the constituency, although not in your sister's area, which is not that far away," it is difficult to make them understand. We also have local government boundaries, which are completely different again.
	I am not necessarily saying that we have to change the situation in Scotland immediately; we are learning to live with our different boundaries. However, there is absolutely no need to walk into the situation that I have described. A simple change, backed up by the evidence, to a four-year fixed term, would cure the problem. I hope that the Government will at least consider the issue again-and quickly, so we can get it out of the way.
	Obviously, there are other issues. I am not qualified to comment on the detail of some of them, but they are important and we need to spend time on them during the passage of the Bill. I hope that at last the Government have heard the question.

Stewart Jackson: I fear that the hon. Lady is perhaps underestimating the sophistication and intelligence of her constituents and those in the rest of Scotland. The evidence seems to suggest that when elections have coincided-for instance, the local elections on 6 May this year and the county council elections previously that coincided with general elections-people have been discerning and have made separate decisions. I would vouchsafe that that was the case in Scotland.

Sheila Gilmore: I am not suggesting that people cannot make separate decisions, but there are practical difficulties. However, over and above those difficulties-which we saw clearly in 2007 and because of which we have taken a step to move elections apart-the overwhelming objection is that we would be in danger of drowning or swamping the important issues of the different legislatures. That is important for what we have built up under devolution. I may now be an elected representative in this place, but those of us who fought hard for devolution did not do so to see everything disappearing in the way that it would in such elections. That is why we should simply amend the Bill to have four-year terms. Then I would be much more supportive of it than I am in its present form.

Mark Durkan: Did my hon. Friend not previously give an answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), when she said that the issue was not whether voters could cope with the different issues, but whether the media could handle the spread of coverage and, in particular, whether the broadcast media could handle the detailed legal requirements for balanced coverage, which would be almost impossible to achieve if those elections were melodeoned together?

Sheila Gilmore: I absolutely agree.

Nicholas Boles: It has been a fascinating five hours in this debate, and I have learned a great deal. I have been vastly entertained, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but I have to admit to being somewhat puzzled. I thought that I would hear the great champions of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary sovereignty.

William Cash: I have not been called.

Nicholas Boles: One of the great champions has not been called, but he has certainly intervened many times, and we have heard from other great champions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I thought that I would hear them make an argument for giving Parliament even more control over matters as vital to our democracy as the timing of elections, but no. We have been given an object lesson in that great phrase "looking a gift horse in the mouth".
	I just wonder what would have happened to the Government if they had come to the House with a proposal to abolish elections altogether or to abolish the role of the Speaker in deciding whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be dragged here to answer an urgent question. Imagine what our reaction would have been then. I listen to the criticism that has been made-that the proposal is somehow fragmentary and piecemeal-and I ask myself whether those critics have any education in the history of our constitution at all. I am the least historically educated person I know, but I know that this country has only ever made change fragmentarily, in a piecemeal fashion and for naked partisan political interests. We even invented an entire new Church-the leader of the Church from which we separated ourselves is about to come to this country, and we welcome him very much-just to enable our sovereign to marry somebody whom he fancied rather more than his wife at the time.
	That was just the starting point for a whole generation of constitutional change, so let us not deny the value of fragmentary and piecemeal constitutional change. Let us instead take advances when we get them, and if they are in the interest of the Government proposing them, let us be grateful for the fact that that interest is so well aligned with the interest of this House.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence that Professor Blackburn, the constitutional lawyer, gave to our Committee on the Bill? In question 75, I asked him:
	"Does it enhance the power of the House of Commons at all?"
	He replied:
	"I am not sure that it does."

Nicholas Boles: I have always found it easy to disagree with academics on almost any subject, and I disagree with Professor Blackburn on that.
	My hon. Friend's question leads me neatly to my next point. With much more trepidation, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with what the Clerk of the House said in his contribution to our evidence about the risks posed by the Bill. I recognise that I am probably the least qualified person here to comment on orders of this House, and on the risks of judicial review that the proposed statute might create, because I am not a lawyer, a long-standing MP or a constitutional historian. However, it seemed inadequate for the Clerk of the House to suggest putting this fundamental provision into the statutes of the House-the orders of the House, as I believe they are called-because surely the House can do away with those orders on a relative whim.
	The one advantage of the statute that the Government are proposing is that it will have to make its way through the other House. Any further changes will also therefore have to make their way through the other House, and we have a commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that we will see full-scale reform of that other House before the next election, to which the Bill would apply.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is making a witty and amusing speech, but does he really believe that the courts inevitably act in a totally rational way in all circumstances? My experience of them, certainly in matters of this kind, is that they can be very capricious.

Nicholas Boles: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point-I should like to call him my right hon. Friend; I am very keen on people joining the coalition, as Members might know-but I am not sure whether the courts are any more capricious than Members of this House. Is that a terrible thing to say?
	I am troubled by the proposal of the Clerk of the House, and I fear that those on my own side who advance it are doing so not because they really think that he has a better way to secure fixed-term Parliaments but because they do not believe in fixed terms, and they want to undermine the Bill. If it is going to be brought in, they want it to be introduced in as weak a form as possible. So let us not be deluded by that argument.
	I want to turn briefly to the argument about election dates. I shall approach the subject with great deference to those who represent parts of the other nations of the United Kingdom, because they of course must be the ones who speak for their constituents. However, in the United States-a place where individual states have much more power and at least as much sense of their own independence and individual character-all the elections always happen on the same day. In that fine democracy, they happen on the first Thursday in November, either every four years or every two years. In the United States, people would consider it a constitutional outrage if elections were to happen on any other day.
	If elections were held on different days, minor elections-I do not venture to suggest that elections to the devolved Assemblies are minor; I am talking about any that people thought were minor-might be used to express an opinion about a major subject, such as the economic policy of the UK Government. It is only by having elections on the same day that people can be guaranteed an ability to express their opinion on every issue that matters to them, be it local, regional or pertaining to their state, their governor, their mayor or the Government of the day. The same applies to referendums, which is why I also support the idea of their being held on the same day. I venture to suggest that hon. Members should really question whether they are assisting the independence of their local elections, and the autonomy of the decision making on the issues in those elections, by proposing separate election dates. I fear that they might achieve the reverse.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman referred to the United States of America, where there are no rules on media balance and supposedly no statutory protections for parties in the broadcast media or anywhere else, and where massive amounts of money are spent. The electoral climate in the United States is entirely different from ours. If he is suggesting that elections to our devolved Parliament and Assemblies and to this Parliament should be conducted in the way they are in America, what does he think the turnout would be?

Nicholas Boles: If people have to go to the polls only once and have to take seven decisions that will affect every single part of government, I suggest that that will make them more likely to vote in the "lower" elections than they would if those elections took place on their own, particularly when people might be busy, have to take the kids to school and get to work. I suspect that the turnout would advance, but let me make it clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will want to understand the concerns and that the final decision will be made in consultation with the devolved Assemblies.
	In the remaining time available, let me deal with one suggestion-for an amendment to the Bill-made by the Select Committee, of which I am lucky to be a member. I hope that the Government will consider it in further stages. The suggestion was that, after an extraordinary or exceptional Dissolution, to avoid any jiggery-pokery or any attempt to engineer a Dissolution to the benefit of one party, the term of whatever Government came in after that Dissolution would be just for the balance of the normal term. If the extraordinary Dissolution came after three years, then, there would be only two years left for the succeeding Government. I think that might go some way to reinforce the Bill's intention to ensure a Dissolution is not done in a frivolous, arbitrary or partisan way.
	In conclusion, let me say that that is the only amendment that I would propose and that I propose it in the spirit of improvement rather than criticism. I very much hope that Members will see fit to support this fine Bill.

Lindsay Hoyle: We have about eight minutes left, with two speakers to go. I call Richard Shepherd.

Richard Shepherd: Four minutes to go. Thank you, Sir.
	Bills of this nature rankle. If I think about it seriously, this looks like an attempt to entrench a Government. On that basis alone, I would vote against it, as it is not my intention to prolong beyond its natural life, the life of any Government. I have listened to two interesting speeches, which I contrast. The first is that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), which took me back to the schoolroom. I listened carefully; this was the constitution I learned as I was growing up. The speech also reminded me of my undergraduate years and when I came here and saw all those things cast aside by a simple vote.
	Tony Benn has articulated more clearly than anyone else that it is no longer the monarch that is crucial; the Crown resides in Downing street. That is what this Bill is about and, in a sense, has always been about. We changed our Administrations by slaughter on battlefields and then we evolved a constitution. I will follow that constitution to the end.
	I have no problem with fixed-term Parliaments, but how does the Bill relate to the constitutional programme put forward by an inept Deputy Prime Minister who cannot bring coherent constitutional measures to the Floor of the House? How does this Bill integrate with the supposed reform of the House of Lords, which is going to be elected? All these issues need to be thought through, but that is not happening. That is why it is legislation on the back of an envelope. There is a cheerful cynicism about it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) suggested, and he is talking the truth.
	This has always been a place that has had its machinations and purposes, with Governments striving to last for longer. Everything said by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Select Committee Chairman, was in a sense trying to identify what was the ideal. I have reverence for the constitution that was, but that went. We had 13 years of the Labour party bringing forth constitutional measures on the back of an envelope time and again. I saw the corruption of this Chamber. I saw the spirit of this House, which the Select Committee Chairman wants to revive. This House still holds all the power and sovereignty of this country should it wish to exercise it. That is all it has ever been about. If we conspire and work together, we can overthrow Governments, or Governments can come to the end of their time.
	As I said last week, I support this coalition because it is the agent by which I hope to see sensible economic, budgetary responses to the dire situation we are in. However, we are confronted with the cheerful cynicism of the Front Bench: "How do we protect ourselves in office?" That is what I feel that this is about. I do not want the people of Aldridge-Brownhills, who sent me here, to be forced to live under a Government extended by an artificial device when that Government's time has gone. The Government have the Parliament Act 1911, which gives them five years if they can make the course and hold the attention of each of us as individual Members from constituencies across the country-and I hope they can. However, they can do it without this half-baked legislation.

William Cash: The Bill was not in the manifesto, and the Prime Minister effectively conceded the case against it some time ago. In addition, there has been no consultation whatever. As I have said, far from giving more power to Parliament, which I regard as a wholly disingenuous argument, it gives more power to the Whips. I love the Whips, but they do use their power to ensure the passage of legislation. I do not hold that against them-they have their job to do, and we have ours.
	This issue is not just a matter for the coalition: there is a connection to many other legislative programmes, including the alternative vote Bill. In my judgment, despite the Liberal Democrats having reached a very low point in the polls, the Bill is largely for their benefit. On the constitutional questions that arise periodically of who governs the United Kingdom and how-whether it is on this issue, AV, or matters European-the Liberal Democrats are wagging the tail.
	I endorse the concerns of the Clerk of the House, and I do not need to repeat my points on that. There should be pre-legislative scrutiny on Bills of this kind. The Bill is being brought in with precipitate haste and is fundamentally flawed. I also believe that Standing Orders would be able to deal with the issue. The idea that, on a whim, the House would reverse the Standing Orders is faintly ridiculous.
	Lastly, it is fundamental that we govern ourselves in the House, because we are here on behalf of the people; it is their Parliament, not ours. If we want to subscribe to that principle, there is one simple solution: give us free votes and put it in the Standing Orders and/or in the Bill, that any legislation that contradicts the principles of the Bill should be endorsed by a free vote of the House. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a free vote if there is any attempt to upset the arrangements of the Bill?

Maria Eagle: We have had an excellent debate, kicked off by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for the Opposition. I cannot let this debate pass without remarking on the fact that he intends that to be his final speech from the Front Bench. He has said that he will retire from the Front Bench: he has done 30 years of hard labour on the Opposition and Government Front Benches and has given distinguished service. He has been called many things: my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) referred to Barbara Castle's remarks about how he had a degree of low cunning about him. I must say that I have found him wily as I have worked for him over the past few years, and wise. I thank him for the time that he has given to junior Ministers and spokespeople. He has always been illuminating to work with, and we will all miss his speeches from the Front Bench, although I am sure that we can look forward to many more from him from the Back Benches in future.
	As my right hon. Friend explained, we agree with the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, although we believe that it should be for a shorter period than the proposed five years. We had a manifesto commitment to a fixed term favouring four years, and for that reason we will not be voting against Second Reading. However, the House should not misinterpret that as anything more than our agreeing with the principle behind the Bill. We have grave concerns about many of the measures proposed in it, about its timing, and about the way in which the proposals have been developed-although "developed" may be too grand a word for a Bill that seems to have been thrown together on the Deputy Prime Minister's whim and then repeatedly altered as each new problem has emerged, all without the slightest effort to consult anyone else. As many Members have said today, that is not a recipe for good legislation.
	We shall be looking closely at the details of the Bill and suggesting amendments. Indeed, it might be better if the Government took the whole thing away and started again from scratch, given the confused and shifting mishmash that appears to be before us and that so casually sets about riding roughshod over one constitutional convention after another. Little thought seems to have been invested in the devising of a scheme that works before the appearance of legislation to implement one that probably will not. Given that the Leader of the House-who is present now-suggested this morning that the present parliamentary Session would continue for two years, why should the Government not take the opportunity to take the Bill away, consult on it properly, and return with something that is in rather fitter shape?
	It is almost as if the Deputy Prime Minister does not really care whether the Bill works or not, as long as he can send a reassuring signal to his parliamentary party and his Tory ministerial collaborators that this Parliament will last for five years, whatever the strains-which are already showing-may be in the interim. The rapidly changing provisions, the substantial but unthought-through shifts that we have already witnessed, the thoughtless interference with long-standing constitutional conventions which have been mentioned by many Members on both sides of the House, the indecent haste with which a major constitutional Bill has been introduced when there was no need for it to be rushed through the House, the total lack of consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny referred to not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Select Committee-all those things make us suspicious about what the true motivations might be.
	So what is really going on behind the overblown rhetoric of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, who specialises in it, about the purpose of their constitutional innovations? The Prime Minister says that he wants to give power away, while the Deputy Prime Minister says that he is embarking on a programme of constitutional reform more extensive than any since the great Reform Act. Of course, he forgets just how minimal the reforms of 1832 actually were in substance. In reality, little or no justification has been offered beyond the rhetoric.
	We have heard from Members in all parts of the House-from the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) in interventions, from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in very witty speeches, from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) in a rather more portentous but very serious speech, and from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has form in this regard-some alternative theories about what might be going on. The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is using vastly overblown claims to hide a tawdry piece of fixing that took place over a few days in a testosterone-filled room packed with erstwhile political enemies who were intent on one thing: producing a political stitch-up that could deliver government to both parties, while preventing each from double-crossing the other for the duration of a Parliament. The fact that they decided to do that by using novel constitutional props is absolutely clear from the proposals that emerged.
	Far from being born out of some kind of reforming zeal, and far from being derived from a carefully thought out analysis of what is wrong with our current constitutional arrangement, the Bill was born out of a suddenly discovered political imperative to save the necks and promote the ministerial careers of those who negotiated it. That is what it looks like to us, because that is what it is. Let us have done with the overblown deputy prime ministerial rhetoric and just call a spade a spade. The long title of this Bill should be "A Bill to ensure that the inherent contradictions in the coalition Government are suppressed for a full five years; to make sure that neither party can double cross the other; and for connected purposes." That would be a bit nearer the mark.
	Those Government Members who are slavishly following the Government-many are not-may protest that I am being too cynical. If I am wrong, how come such an important piece of constitutional reform was not in both parties' manifestos? It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto; they were in favour of a four-year fixed term in their policy, but we appear to have a five-year term in the Bill. How come the Bill has not been afforded the opportunity of pre-legislative scrutiny, or preceded by a Green Paper, White Paper or draft Bill? How come it did not involve all-party consultations and discussions with a view to reaching cross-party agreement, which there may have been some possibility of reaching? How come the Bill has changed in substance more than once as the repeated announcement of ill-thought-through expedients has hit the reality of their not actually being workable or acceptable in the cold light of day?
	How come the Bill is in such a poor state that the Clerk of the House has indicated that it has the potential to allow the courts, and even the European Court, to be second-guessing the Speaker, the monarch and this House on such fundamentally political issues as the date of the general election, or whether or not a confidence motion has been passed? It is not just me asking these questions. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset all asked this precise question.
	The Bill contains too many novel and contentious constitutional principles to be dealt with in the arrogant and high-handed way that is becoming a hallmark of the Deputy Prime Minister's dealings with this House. The subjects that the Bill addresses are constitutionally fundamental; there is no doubt about that. It ends prerogative powers to dissolve but not to prorogue Parliament-something Charles I would probably have been able to work with-but with the potential to drag the monarch into party political controversy, which would be highly undesirable in this day and age. It introduces the novel, ill-thought-though and potentially dangerous concept of super-majorities into parliamentary proceedings.
	As our Clerk has warned, and as the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon set out, the Bill puts elements of parliamentary procedure into statute, thus fundamentally changing the nature of the legislature's relationship with the judiciary by potentially forcing it to decide what we meant to do in parliamentary proceedings that have hitherto been unavailable to judicial interpretation, thus potentially politicising the judiciary; a most undesirable outcome. The possibility of this is the danger, not the probability, as the hon. and learned Member made clear. I agree with him.
	The Bill refers to confidence motions without defining them, thus potentially requiring judges to define them in court proceedings. It draws the monarch and the Speaker into the most party-political aspects of parliamentary proceedings with the obvious risk that their deliberations and actions will be tarnished with party-political controversy of a kind wholly alien to our constitutional arrangements. As we have heard from many hon. Members, the Bill has a serious impact on the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because of the planned date of the election. If the Deputy Prime Minister had bothered to consult in advance, that particular difficulty might have been pointed out to him so that he could have avoided it.
	It is reasonable for any Government to propose constitutional changes, but there is a proper and improper way of doing it. This is not the best way of handling constitutional issues. Why the rush? This is the big question that many of us have been asking during the course of the debate. There is no need for such an ill-thought-through Bill to be before us. The coalition agreement on 12 May said that there would be a "binding motion" placed before the House, whatever that is. I thought that most of our motions were binding. That was to be followed by legislation for a five-year fixed term during which a vote of 55% of Members would be needed to bring the Government down. It just so happened that the combined strength of Tory and Lib Dem Members in this Parliament is 56%, so this represented a clear effort to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the legislature, not to mention preventing the parties to the coalition agreement from ratting on each other.
	The furore that ensued has led the Deputy Prime Minister to think again, and that is a good thing, but by the time of the publication of the coalition's programme for government on 20 May this remained the policy. By the Queen's Speech on 25 May, the legislation had been brought forward to be a major priority in the first Session, although we were still promised the binding motion. The Deputy Leader of the House promised it to us before the summer recess, but in the event it did not appear. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister ought occasionally to inform his ministerial colleagues about the back-flips that he plans to execute before they assure the House that the Government are going to do something that he has already decided not to do.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend has given the House a superb explanation of why this is a rotten Bill; anyone who came into the Chamber just after she began her comments might mistakenly believe that the Labour party is opposing this Bill. She has given many good reasons why we should oppose it, but can she try to explain to me why on earth we are going to be sitting on our backsides during the Division?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend will do what he wants with his backside when the Division gets called; I am sure that he is capable of making his own mind up. We have made it clear that although we are not voting against the Bill on Second Reading, whether we support it on Third Reading will depend on how well it is put right in the interim.
	The Deputy Prime Minister told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
	"We felt that"-
	the resolution-
	"was necessary on the assumption that the legislation would then come much further down the track."
	Why not put the legislation further down the track, in order to enable proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny to take place and to allow there to be properly considered measures, with cross-party agreement, that might actually work?
	By that time, the measures that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced were already unravelling, because those in the testosterone-filled room of self-interest of the coalition builders, who came up with the 55% super-majority, were so focused on protecting themselves against mutual duplicity that they failed to consider little issues such as the sovereignty of Parliament and other constitutional conventions relating to Dissolution. The proposals in the programme for government were running into the sand; all it took was the light of day and the unravelling began.
	By 5 July, the Deputy Prime Minister had changed his mind again, but alas the new proposals are not better; they are just different. The 55% super-majority has been abandoned in favour of a 66% one, which appears unlikely to be used. I say in all seriousness to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), for whom I have a lot of time, because he has great difficulties in his Department: what is the rush? We are at the beginning of this Parliament, so why not consult? Why not seek cross-party agreement? What on earth is the argument against doing so? Why not have pre-legislative scrutiny on such an important constitutional Bill? Why not allow the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to do its job, instead of making it rush? Why not allow the time for concerns expressed by the Clerk about the risk to the privileges of the legislature to be properly addressed? Just asserting in the newspapers that he is wrong does not amount to a refutation of his arguments. Why was his informed advice not heeded a little more in the drafting of this Bill? Is it right that a Bill that provides for such massive constitutional innovation should be introduced five days before the House rises for the summer recess and debated one week after its return, given that the Leader of the House has just announced that this Session of Parliament will go on for two years?
	The truth is that the Bill is a reflection of the Minister in charge of it and the political imperatives that led to its being devised. Our over-confident yet vacillating Deputy Prime Minister, who keeps changing his mind every few weeks about what should be in this legislation, appears armed only with his grandiose delusions of constitutional good sense and that characteristic overblown Lib Dem sense of self-importance, which all those who fight the Lib Dems at a local level will recognise very well. One wonders how much he is listening to, or absorbing and considering properly, the advice he must be getting. This is a dangerous combination for our constitutional settlement. We cannot and should not accept that constitutional arrangements that have worked well for centuries should be thrown away hubristically and without thought by a Deputy Prime Minister who cares only for his own neck and the short-term expedient of remaining in his post for a full Parliament.
	We have a Deputy Prime Minister who flits from the whim of introducing super-majorities to allowing judges to tell us whether or not we can have an election, and who does not seem to understand that the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the Speaker are important principles that we should defend. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who appears more interested in lofty rhetoric about how radical his constitutional innovations are than the detailed work needed to make them both desirable and workable in practice. Members of this House will have to do the work for him. Her Majesty's Opposition will play our part; we will seek to subject the Bill to the scrutiny it needs, and I also reiterate the fact that we intend to review whether to continue to support the Bill on Third Reading.

Mark Harper: The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) seemed to spend rather more time talking about my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister than the Bill during her rather lengthy winding-up speech, and Members-certainly colleagues on the Government Benches-will have noticed that she had trouble keeping a straight face while making her speech. From that, we can detect just how much she really believed what she was saying while going through the motions of delivering her remarks.
	We have had a good debate on this important Bill. There were 19 Back-Bench speakers and I will try to refer to their contributions as I go through the arguments. I should just say at the outset that today I sent a copy of the Government's response to the memorandum from the Clerk of the House of Commons to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and placed another copy in the Library of the House, and I should also have sent a copy to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on behalf of the Opposition. I have apologised to him privately, and I would like to do so on the Floor of the House too. It was an inadvertent omission, not a deliberate discourtesy.
	The issue of the time available for debating the Bill arose in a number of speeches from both sides of the House. As is clear from the programme motion, we have allowed two days of debate in Committee of the whole House, so every Member will get the opportunity to debate these important constitutional measures, and a further day on Report and Third Reading for a Bill that contains five clauses and one schedule, albeit they address very important principles.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present. In answering an urgent question earlier today, he made the point that in the first Session of a new Parliament it is simply not possible to do as much pre-legislative scrutiny as one would hope to be able to do later in a Parliament. However, we are not racing off at pace, and I encourage the Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), to continue its deliberations as I feel that there will be time for the Government and the House to learn from its deliberations before we move into Committee.

George Howarth: The Minister should be aware that the Leader of the House said exactly that at business questions last week, but that he then added that it was for political reasons.

Mark Harper: Yes, the Leader of the House made the point and I do not think it is different from what I have just said. These are important measures and the Government want to get on with political and constitutional reform. That is why we are moving ahead with these measures, but they will be debated on the Floor of the House and all colleagues will have the opportunity to debate them.

Graham Allen: Is not one of the advantages of having a five-year or four-year fixed-term Parliament the ability to plan the legislative timetable, and will the Minister therefore reassure Members of all parties that in future all Bills will be subject to a 12-week pre-legislative scrutiny process?  [ Interruption .]

Mark Harper: Well, I think I hear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House saying that in principle that is what we intend to do.

George Young: indicated  assent .

Mark Harper: And I know my right hon. Friend always means what he says.
	The Bill's key principle is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is giving up the power to seek the Dissolution of the House. Previous Prime Ministers have exercised that power for their own party advantage. That principle of having fixed-term Parliaments was welcomed by the Chairman of the Select Committee and by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who speaks for the Opposition; indeed it was in his party's manifesto.
	At this point, I should just add to the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister last week and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood today. I will miss the contributions from the Front Bench of the right hon. Member for Blackburn. He and I have sparred in this Chamber a number of times, and I have always listened carefully to the guidance he has given me on how to deal with the House. I hope Members feel I have learned something from him. I leave it up to others to decide whether what I have learned is, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, low cunning or whether I have some way to go in that regard. I should say that I thought the right hon. Gentleman dealt very well with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) about what happened in 1950 and how that could perfectly well have been dealt with by our Bill. The expert way in which the right hon. Gentleman did that showed that he is secretly quite supportive of the Bill.

Tom Harris: Does the Minister understand that it is rather difficult for the House to accept that from the Conservative party's point of view this Bill represents a point of principle, given that every single Conservative Member of Parliament was elected on the promise that in this Parliament the replacement of the Prime Minister would result in a general election within six months? That surely says more about the Prime Minister's confidence in the support of his Back Benchers than it does about his confidence in the principle of constitutional reform.

Mark Harper: As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, in the last Parliament, when Conservative Members had the opportunity to discuss this matter, we did not vote against it. It is a very clear principle in the coalition agreement to have a fixed-term Parliament. All Members on the Opposition Benches-or at least in the main Opposition party-were elected on that principle. I am sure that they will support the Bill if there is a Division this evening.
	The proposals this morning from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the way we want to change the Sessions of this place to fit in with this Bill can, I am confident, be debated in Committee. We debated them a little earlier today and I think that the fact that the Chair allowed that debate to take place shows that they are in order and that we will be able to debate them in Committee.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way on the subject of his memorandum?

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make some progress.
	On the subject of the date and combination of the elections, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that the Government draw a distinction between the coincidence of the referendum next year and parliamentary or Assembly elections-a combination that we think is perfectly justifiable when there is a simple yes-no decision-and the coincidence of elections to different Parliaments or Assemblies. He accepted that such elections were more complex and made it very clear that the Government will engage and continue to engage with devolved Administrations.

Pete Wishart: rose-

Mark Harper: Let me just make the point about Scotland and then I will give way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, has written to the leaders of each of the groups in the Scottish Parliament, the Presiding Officer, Opposition spokesmen in this House and the Chairman of the Select Committee and intends to continue that dialogue. Indeed, I will meet him to discuss this matter further. We take these issues seriously and are not just paying lip service to them.

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will have heard the strong representations in today's debate about the combination of both elections. We must hear a little more from the Minister about the specific proposals to ensure that there is no clash in the election dates. What is in his mind about how we can untie and unlock the two elections?

Mark Harper: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. If I were to come out with specific proposals before we have discussed them in detail with representatives from the devolved Administrations and from those Assemblies and Parliaments, he would rightly criticise me for being high-handed. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear that we want to solve this problem.
	On the issue of not having consulted people in advance, however, I think it is right that, unlike under the previous Government, proposals brought forward by the Government should be announced to this House first before they are discussed with others. That explains why we did not hold those discussions with others first.
	On the issue of confidence and the mechanism for motions of confidence, a number of colleagues on both sides of the House seem to be a little confused about the present position. This Bill does not change the position in any way. The right hon. Member for Knowsley and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) all appeared to confuse to some extent our proposals on confidence and on Dissolution. It is very clear that, on confidence, we are not changing the position at all. The Government must have a simple majority in this House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) worried about a change of Government without an election. That can happen now, so that is not a change. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) said that there was an automatic right for an election following the loss of a confidence vote. There is no such automatic right-that is a matter of judgment for Her Majesty the Queen.

William Cash: In the memorandum that my hon. Friend issued this afternoon, he effectively attacks the Clerk of the House when he says:
	"Turning to the specific points raised by the memorandum: it contains a fundamental misunderstanding about the effect of the Bill on the rules and principles",
	and so on. Will he clarify something for me? On the jurisdiction of the courts, will he be good enough to spell out, as do the Parliament Acts, that none of the documents or procedures under the Bill should or could be questioned in any court of law? Will he bring forward an amendment to make sure that we get absolute symmetry between this Bill and article 9 of the Bill of Rights?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes some very good points, but I do not think I will be able to do them justice in the four and a bit minutes remaining to me. I have placed in the Library a memorandum responding to the Clerk's points, which Members can look at. We will deal with these issues-I am confident that my hon. Friend will raise them-in Committee.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think he will find, if he checks the record, that it was the Deputy Prime Minister and not I who got confused about Dissolution arrangements and votes of no confidence.

Mark Harper: That was not my recollection at all. I have dealt with the issue of privilege that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) raised.
	There are a few speeches that I particularly want to mention. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made an excellent, almost noteless, maiden speech in which he brought the House welcome news about the former Deputy Speaker, Sir Michael Lord, and his improving health. I am sure that all Members will join me in welcoming that excellent news. My hon. Friend gave us a tour of his constituency and focused on the national health service, his professional experience and his campaigning work. He raised an issue that is close to my heart, which I have to deal with-improving broadband in rural constituencies.
	I shall pick up only one of the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox)-that of a euro treaty and a Prime Minister who might wish to dissolve Parliament to put it before the people. We had such a circumstance in the last Parliament, but that Government not only did not consult the people through a referendum, but rammed the measure through the House. That is not an example that this Government plan to follow.
	We have had a very good debate with excellent speakers. The central principle is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has become the first Prime Minister in British history to relinquish his power to seek an election at a time of his own choice. A quote about this issue that I particularly liked compared the advantage that an incumbent Government have in calling the election when they choose with that of an athlete arriving at the track in their running shoes and being allowed to fire the starting pistol. The Prime Minister is taking off his running shoes and putting away his starting pistol, and I have detected a general sense of welcome in the House for that principle-from the Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Blackburn and many other Members.
	I recognise that many important issues have been raised-some of detail and some of more significance-and I look forward to further scrutiny from the Select Committee. Indeed, I have an appointment this Thursday to be grilled by its members on both of our constitutional Bills. I look forward to that, as I am sure do they, and I also look forward to the Bill's Committee stage in the House when we can deal in more detail with the concerns that have been raised today. Any Member will then be able to raise their concerns on the Floor of the House so that we can have an excellent debate and deal with them so that the House can gain powers being given away by the Executive. That example was not set by the previous Government and I am proud to be introducing it. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 23.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time.

fixed-term parliaments bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith , (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	 Proceedings in Committee
	2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
	3. The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; the Schedule; Clause 5; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill.
	4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	6. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	7. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	8. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	9. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed .-(Angela Watkinson.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 27.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate

Business of the House

Ordered, 
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 13 October, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.- (Angela Watkinson.)

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

Resolved,
	That Hazel Blears, Sir Menzies Campbell, Mr Mark Field, Paul Goggins, Mr George Howarth, Dr Julian Lewis and Sir Malcolm Rifkind be recommended to the Prime Minister for appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee under section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.- (Angela Watkinson , on behalf of the Committee of Selection. )

PETITIONS

Bromsgrove Railway Station

Sajid Javid: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to present to the House of Commons this petition from the people of Bromsgrove, signed by more than 1,600 of my constituents.  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I want to hear about the petition on behalf of the people of Bromsgrove, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants the House to listen courteously. Members leaving should please do so quickly and quietly.

Sajid Javid: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Bromsgrove,
	Declares that the petitioners, whilst recognising the current pressure on public finances, believe that the cost to the public purse of a new railway station in Bromsgrove would be more than offset by the resulting economic and environmental benefits for both Bromsgrove and the wider region; and notes that there is uncertainty about the availability of government funding for this project.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to confirm that government funding for this vital infrastructural upgrade will go ahead.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000858]

Dartford Crossing

Gareth Johnson: This petition is one that I and many other hon. Members support, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is in her place. The Dartford crossing has been a scar on the face of Dartford for too long.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of North Kent,
	Declares that the petitioners believe that the Dartford Crossing should not be sold or privatised.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Dartford Crossing remains in public ownership.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000859]

URBAN SUPERMARKETS (PLANNING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -( Angela Watkinson .)

Greg Hands: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the short time available this evening the issue of planning regulations for urban supermarkets and convenience stores. There has been quite a lot of interest in these issues, both in this House and outside, so let me start by saying what I hope this debate will not be about. First, it is not about making a general attack on the growth of supermarkets and their power in this country, which I am sure is a matter of fascination but would probably take us beyond the time available. Nor is this debate about saying that we have too many supermarkets, although my constituency might have more than any other. According to  The Daily Telegraph, in January 2007 Bicester was called "Tesco Town" because it had six outlets, yet one street alone in my constituency-Fulham road-has more than 10 branches of Tesco.
	Nor is this debate about the important role that small shops and a diversified retail base can have. I support, for example, the  Evening Standard campaign on that issue, although it should also be recognised that there are parts of the world, such as Fulham, that suffer from not having a high street with the chain stores that one might expect. I am also careful not to prescribe too much Government interference in this area. I take the view that, after all, there would not be 10 Tescos on Fulham road in my constituency if there was no customer demand for them. Tesco and the other supermarkets are, after all, successful private sector enterprises that study and understand their customers effectively.
	This debate is about empowering local authorities to defend residents who face the immediate consequences of an urban supermarket or convenience store setting up nearby, next door or, at worst, below them. There is currently no planning classification for supermarkets or similar outlets: they are classified as A1, like any other retail shop. Many urban local supermarkets-if not the great majority-have been set up on the premises of other retail outlets, for which they do not require planning permission. Furthermore, planning permission is not generally required for converting many other premises into urban supermarkets. I shall illustrate that phenomenon in due course, but it can include conversion from pubs, cafés, banks or building societies, estate agents' offices, and so on. Pretty much any customer-focused premises can be converted into a supermarket. Such changes are generally viewed as permitted development in the planning system.
	The problem is one that I have been aware of for the past 12 years, since being elected for the first time as a councillor in the urban area of Hammersmith and Fulham. As it happens, 1998 was the same year that the very first Sainsbury's Local supermarket was established, on Fulham Palace road, in what was part of my constituency before this year's boundary changes. It was a first, and that model of urban supermarket has now been rolled out by Sainsbury's, Tesco and others, with huge success. It has met customer demand in urban areas-not least from the likes of me, as I do not have a car. Before this debate, Sainsbury's provided me with figures which show that, since that first Sainsbury's Local opened on Fulham Palace road, a further 334 Sainsbury's Local convenience stores have opened in the UK. No one doubts that it has been a huge success.
	A number of voices have been raised to try to change or tighten the planning rules. For example, as recently as July 2010, the London Assembly published its report, "Cornered shops: London's small shops and the planning system", which recommended dividing the A1 class into supermarkets on the one hand, and-broadly speaking-all other retail units on the other. The Assembly felt that that would allow local authorities to control the proliferation of supermarkets.
	My objective is rather different. It is not arbitrarily to restrict the number of such outlets, but to allow local authorities to ensure that the new store either has no negative impact on nearby residents or at least reduces it. In other words, the planning system, through local authorities, would nudge the supermarket companies into changing their behaviour, becoming better neighbours, and reducing noise and other environmental impacts. To put it more simply, they would be able to get their change of use if they installed noise abatement measures, especially in relation to refrigeration units, if they restricted delivery times to after 7 am or 8 am, if they ensured that no alcohol was served after 10 pm, and so on.

Rosie Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When he gives that gentle nudge to the supermarkets, will he bear in mind the fact that, in the run-up to Christmas, they often install floodlit marquees containing refrigerated units? They do not worry about local authority planning regulations because the marquees are removed after 28 days, when Christmas has passed, and that is how long it would take to do anything about them. Supermarkets do this regularly, and it causes great annoyance and disturbance to local residents.

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I am sure that the Minister will wish to respond to her point. It sounds as though such temporary structures would require planning permission, but I am not intimately familiar with that. We do not have a lot of space to erect temporary marquees in Chelsea and Fulham, but they sound as though they should be covered by existing regulations.
	My objective is to ensure that the planning system works for local people, particularly those finding themselves living near, next to or above a supermarket. I do not want local authorities to micro-manage retail frontages, flying in the face of customer demand, but I do want supermarkets to try to become better neighbours. Let me illustrate that with four examples from my constituency.
	The first involves a success story. In 1998, I worked closely with residents on Parsons Green lane who had bought flats in a new development called The Square, which was above proposed retail premises. I was told later that the residents had been informed, during the process of buying their flats, that there was to be an antiques store below them. As one might expect, however, given that the development was opposite Parsons Green tube station-some would say that it was almost inevitable-it turned out not to be an antiques store but a branch of Budgens. Working closely with the council, however, we managed to get restrictions put in place, and Budgens effectively floated the ceiling-I believe that that is the terminology-by putting in new acoustic protection for the benefit of the residents above. That was possible only because it was a new build and the local authority was able, because it had to grant full planning permission, to impose such a restriction, with which the supermarket had to comply.
	That was a rare success, however, and I am afraid to say that other residents have had much less happy experiences in recent years. Let me first detail the case of the Salisbury Tavern on Sherbrooke road in Fulham. To my certain knowledge, it had been a public house for decades. It became a rather successful gastro-pub in about 2001, but in recent years the population of Fulham has changed. It has aged a little and become more family-oriented, and many of the gastro-pubs have been closing. So, after many decades, the Salisbury Tavern closed down. Tesco appeared from nowhere, and before anyone really had time to react, it was approved in April 2010 to convert the premises.
	Permitted development rules allowed a change of use from class A4 to class A1. Some small planning permissions were needed, for illuminated signage, the installation of an ATM and an air-conditioning unit. However, we should note that, as far as I could tell, they were not needed for the inevitable refrigeration units that were going to be installed or for the restrictions on opening hours, delivery times and so forth. When it comes to things that really impact on neighbours, the council had few, if any, powers in this case. The local community around Dawes road hope that Tesco will be a good neighbour, but there does not appear to be anything pushing it in that direction.
	The third example takes us back to Fulham road. It is not the opening of the 11th Tesco there; permission has been sought to convert in order to create another Sainsbury's Local. The three existing retail units-an A3, A2 and an A1 class-are to be converted to create one single A1 premises, a Sainsbury's Local. The council tells me that that constitutes permitted development and does not require planning permission. There are some smaller ancillary applications related to the installation of an ATM, some illuminated signage and some machine plant, for example. I shall probably object to them, but I am not hopeful of any real success because the grounds on which I would like to object are unlikely to be taken into account. If the new Sainsbury's at the North End road is anything to go by, it will have a dramatic impact on its neighbours above, alongside and in the immediate vicinity.
	Finally, I want to illustrate this phenomenon with reference to the misery that the Heap family has faced on North End road over the past five or six years. The Heaps are tenants of the Notting Hill housing trust, and I know them to be quiet, clean-living, working people who take great pride in their home. They are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Until 2004 or 2005, the retail premises below them had for a considerable period been used as a bed shop. We all know that such retail outlets have been going out of fashion, as people tend to buy at Ikea or purchase on the internet. Almost inevitably, the bed shop in the centre of Fulham closed down and Sainsbury came along and opened a Sainsbury's Local. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that any planning permission was needed, except for the ancillary features such as the ATM and some signage. No planning application was necessary for the considerable refrigeration units put in or for the new goods lift, which makes a lot of noise at rather inconvenient hours of the day.
	This should begin to illustrate why I believe supermarkets are different from other retail or A1 uses. Refrigeration units can and do have huge impacts in terms of noise, especially in Victorian buildings. The same goes for industrial lifts, delivery palettes, daily early morning deliveries, again with refrigeration-in this case, the units in the lorries. The impact on the Heaps' quality of life has been devastating. Unlike in the Budgens example I cited earlier, Sainsbury was not obliged to do anything to design in noise abatement at the converted premises.
	Throughout, Sainsbury has treated the Heaps, the Notting Hill housing trust and me with a mixture of foot dragging and obfuscation. In my eight years as the Heaps' local councillor and then my five and a half years as their MP, I have had perhaps half a dozen site meetings with Sainsbury-quite a lot for an individual item of MP casework. Every time, small, incremental improvements are promised by Sainsbury, but only some are delivered and they are often reversed, as with the installation of acoustical flooring. Staff are told to be more respectful, but it rarely lasts. Senior management occasionally respond to e-mails from me, but almost never to those from the Heaps. I have called the office of Justin King himself on a number of occasions, chasing up responses, as has Notting Hill-but it has similarly had no real response. To be fair, Sainsbury is now promising what appear to be better improvements, but only as a result of my securing this debate tonight. Miraculously, it appears to have sprung into action and answered many of my requests over the summer.
	To conclude, the Minister will know better than me what overall approach our new coalition Government are taking towards supermarkets, in respect of planning and of competition matters, which I have not dwelled on tonight. Certainly, the below-cost selling of alcohol is attracting attention. I think that the time has come to try to effect a new classification in the planning rules for supermarkets or to allow tighter local authority controls over changes in classification so that additional resident-friendly conditions might be able to be applied. In that sense, I might agree with the London Assembly, although I think we are approaching the problem from rather different angles.
	I appreciate that this throws up some issues of definition-for example, what actually constitutes a supermarket or a convenience store, which is obviously vital when planning regulations are being designed. The key definition for me might include the use of large-scale refrigeration. By requiring supermarkets to get planning permission, we empower local authorities-and thereby local communities-to secure improvements and environmental changes that will improve lives in the immediate vicinity.
	I start as someone who is not naturally hostile to expanding private enterprises, such as supermarkets, which are seeking to meet customer demand. However, urban convenience stores, and Sainsbury's in particular, need to do much better in their communities. I urge the Minister to take another look at the matter, and I look forward to his response.

Bob Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) on securing this debate about planning regulations on urban supermarkets and convenience stores, which is a concerning area of policy for many of his constituents. The debate seems quite well attended compared with some I have seen in the past.
	The debate has raised important issues around balancing sustainable development with community needs, so I am pleased to be able to respond. My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about problems that might arise in the planning process, where planning permission is not required to change the use of a building. First, however, it would be helpful if I set those issues in context.
	To achieve the aim of balanced and sustainable communities, we need homes, jobs, leisure facilities and places to shop in locations where they can be accessed by all. That is why we focus new development and activities in the cities, towns and villages in which we live. However, we understand the tensions that occasionally arise from locating different types of development and land uses next to one another. That is why it is important to have a planning system that balances the need to allow businesses to grow with protections for the community from the negative impacts of some development. The planning process seeks to ensure that our communities get the right type of development, located in the right locations, to maximise benefits for all, and to prevent, as far as possible, negative impacts.
	Where proposed developments are likely to cause problems for neighbours, local planning authorities already have powers to attach planning conditions to permissions. Those conditions are aimed at preventing the problems from ever occurring. For example, a local planning authority may impose a condition that can specify time limits within which deliveries to a shop may take place, to avoid traffic congestion or noise sensitivity issues in the vicinity of the development.
	Of course, local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to restrict certain uses to particular sites. Where a local planning authority thinks that problems may occur, it can restrict planning permission for a shop to non-food A1 use class only. That could be used, for example, to prevent a hairdresser's becoming a convenience store. By using those powers properly, local planning authorities can prevent the types of conflict that my hon. Friend has mentioned, particularly in residential and more sensitive areas. Similarly, planning permission is still required if a change of use of a building needed significant structural alterations: for example, if the change of use required changing the street frontage of a shop. Those are all important safeguards of the interests of local residents.
	Having set that context, let me move on to the specific subject of this evening's debate-the problems that can arise when planning permission is not needed, because the use class order allows one type of shop to be converted into another type without planning permission. Let me explain the background to the use classes order, because its purpose is often misunderstood. The order was introduced to remove unnecessary planning applications from the planning system, and, therefore, to speed up the system. The use classes order groups together uses that have similar land-use impacts and characteristics into classes. Changes of use within a class are not considered to be development and therefore do not require planning permission. Relevant to this discussion is the A1 use class, which includes a range of different shopping types including corner shops, supermarkets, retail warehouses and post offices. Of course, I accept that two developments, even if categorised in the same use class, may not have exactly the same operating characteristics. Shops, for example, can have different opening or delivery times.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the planning system grants further flexibility by allowing some changes of use between classes without the need for planning applications. That applies when the impact of the proposed use is considered to be less than that of the existing use. Obviously it did not happen in this instance, but it is an important aspect of the system. Hot food takeaways, pubs, restaurants and financial services such as banks can all convert to shops without requiring planning applications if the impact on neighbours is regarded as being less than that of the existing use. The key difference in this instance is that local authorities have the power to remove that freedom of movement and require planning permission if there is local concern about such a development.
	I take the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents seriously, and I recognise that at times there will be tensions between businesses and their neighbours. However, we must not forget that the planning system cannot deal with all community tensions. The system is often criticised for being slow and bureaucratic. It can create a significant amount of work for local planning authorities; it can also act as a disincentive to development, thus stifling economic and physical regeneration. That can frustrate the legitimate development that we all need. Planning controls should be introduced only when there is a strong case for doing so.

Jane Ellison: In a case in my constituency, the fact that there was no need for a change-of-use permission removed the trigger mechanism that sometimes acts as an early warning in the planning system. A shop that has invested several hundred thousand pounds is three doors from what is about to become a local branch of a chain of supermarkets. Will the Minister comment, or at least reflect, on the fact that the ease with which change of use was allowed, enabling a pub to become a Sainsbury's Local, removed the trigger mechanism that might have informed other local shops, as well as residential neighbours, of what was in the pipeline?

Bob Neill: I will reflect on that, and explain the ways in which we propose to deal with such issues in a moment. The example given by my hon. Friend highlights the balance that must be struck between competition and trading opportunities between different operators in the same area on the one hand, and legitimate planning considerations on the other. Sometimes there appears to be an overlap between the two in the minds of the general public, which is not so easy to translate into planning law.
	Let me return to the issue of the impacts of changes of activity that do not require permission. In general, we would expect businesses to operate responsibly, and to be sensitive to the communities within which they operate. When neighbours raise legitimate concerns about development, it is in the interests of businesses- particularly those with a strong community presence, such as supermarket chains-to take them seriously and respond positively.
	Local authorities also have wider responsibilities and powers to investigate complaints about problems such as noise. Authorities must take "all reasonable steps" to investigate any complaint in relation to noise. I have no doubt that the local authority cited by my hon. Friend is diligent and well aware of those powers. Authorities are expected to raise the issue with the person or organisation causing the nuisance, giving the details of the complaint and asking for steps to be taken to reduce the noise. If the local authority believes a statutory nuisance is occurring, or is likely to occur or recur, it must take action.
	That is where we are at the moment and we do not want to dismiss my hon. Friend's concerns. There may always be individual cases where the balance between avoiding bureaucratic overload by requiring permission for a simple change of use and guarding against unacceptable impacts gives rise to unintended consequences. With more and different types of retail activity and means of dealing with storage, for example, one must be alert to changing circumstances that may not have been anticipated when the regulations were drafted. I have a lot of sympathy for this situation and, as I have indicated, I would hope that the local authorities use powers against nuisance if that is the appropriate route.
	The point raised by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) relates rather more to the case of the operation of the rules in relation to temporary permission rather than use classes, but it is a legitimate area of concern. I do not doubt that.

Rosie Cooper: The Local Government Association and local authorities know that supermarkets will breach their planning consent for six or seven weeks each year coming up to Christmas. By the time authorities act, the supermarkets have taken things down and it does not matter. They are flouting the rules and getting away with it. The LGA is looking to us to try to do something about it.

Bob Neill: I understand that, which is why I am about to set out the way in which we will address these concerns. We are keeping the use classes order under review, but at present we feel that the balance that it strikes is about right. However, there are specific issues that need to be examined. We are determined to do more to help local planning authorities and communities shape the places in which people live.
	Much of the coalition's work since May has therefore focused on overseeing a fundamental shift of power away from Westminster to councils and communities. We believe that, generally, planning should be a local matter, with planning decisions being made at local level wherever possible. We will ensure that national planning policies support local decision making. In the past, national planning objectives have been set out through a series of planning policy guidance notes, and more recently planning policy statements. These cover a broad range of policy themes and are piecemeal in nature. This is why we said in the coalition agreement that we will publish and present to Parliament a simple and consolidated national planning framework covering all forms of development. This simple and consolidated framework will set out not only what the Government's economic and environmental priorities are, but how they relate to each other. Such a framework would also set out in general terms but in sufficient detail to provide clarity what was expected, both of the planning system and in terms of delivering national priorities.
	We will make an announcement-in short order, I hope-as to how we propose to take forward the national planning framework and the implications for specific areas of policy. That is an appropriate vehicle to look at the operation of the PPSs and PPGs. In pulling together a more holistic approach with the national framework, I suggest that that is the appropriate vehicle by which the Government can address what may have been anomalies or circumstances that have arisen since the previous use classes orders were drawn up and to see if what we have now remains appropriate for the future. There may be ways in which we can better achieve a fair and proportionate response to the legitimate needs of development on the one hand and the equally legitimate concerns of the neighbours of those who carry out economic activity on the other. The coalition's proposals for that framework provide a good opportunity for us to address sensibly precisely the issues raised in this debate.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 9 September 2010: In column 566, in Division No. 59, add "Newmark, Brooks", in the Noes.